Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

An idea

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> An idea Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
An idea - 4/1/2008 3:06:30 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 910
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
Inspired by the 1947 scenario. It's supposed to be a fun scenario, with equal chances of victory.

So the setting is this:
Axis 'win' WW2. In 1946 Hitler dies and this cause Germany to go into 'chaos' as power blocks struggle for control. Allies use this to mobilise their forces and in 1947 launch their attack.

The Axis minors and puppets start mobilised, as they are the first ones to see the dangers. Germany starts with SS units mobilised but partly in re-org. Rest of Axis units mobilise within first 20 turns. Also German replacements start from turn 10.

All nationalities have their own squads. This is of course the equipment that comes in big numbers, ie. rifle squads, but not ferry-bridging squads.
Also all axis minors reconstruct in their own capitals. Which means that once they are overrun their unit will no longer reconstruct, and since their equipment is nation specific there is no need to toy with replacement changes.

Untis will be divisions and brigades. Time scale one turn = one week, hex 20kms.

My problem is, how to divide the east and how to make the OOB's.
For example I figured Germany will have around 300 infantry divisions and 38 SS Panzer divisions...but what else? Flak divisions but how many? Artillery and werfer brigades probaply...but again, how many? Mechanized divisions? Motorised divisions?


Anyways, the minor axis. This is how I figured it to look like:
Axis allies:
Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ukraine, Italy

Axis puppets(ie. poor quality units):
White Russia(St. Petersburg to Stalingrad...a buffer zone), France, Greece, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Yugoslavia

And what about Spain and Turkey?

And regarding the puppets, once they fall to allies their armies will mobilise. I figured it will take about a year for those armies to be 'built', in other words 5 turns. This means Axis has to defend those countries or risk reinforcing the allies heavily.

Here's an example of what a german infantry division would look like:
Infantry Division
36 x german engineer squads
9 x motorcycle squads
261 x german rifle squads
21 x german SMG squad
110 x HMG
20 x 75mm ig
6 x 150mm ig
54 x 81mm mortar
9 x ferry-bridging squad
24 x 105mm howitzer
12 x 150mm howitzer
14 x Hetzer or Stug IIIG
12 x 120mm mortar
9 x 50mm ATG
21 x 75mm ATG
12 x truck 20mm AA
42 x halftracks
3 x armoured car
276 x truck
504 x horse team
0/282 x german assault squads


Rifle and SMG squads switch to Assault squads starting in 1948
total of 282 assault squads

The trucks and horse teams will probaply be less...for gameplay purposes.
Post #: 1
RE: An idea - 4/1/2008 9:03:35 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
And what about Spain and Turkey?


Spain and Turkey will be part of the 'New Europe' if Germany has won World War Two. France is more interesting. I doubt if she would be a 'puppet.' Probably independent but clear on where her best interests lay. I also don't see any reason why France's units would be 'poor quality.' Vichy troops demonstrated they were roughly as good as Commonwealth ones in Syria in 1941.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/1/2008 10:29:55 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 2
RE: An idea - 4/2/2008 2:54:09 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 910
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
And what about Spain and Turkey?


Spain and Turkey will be part of the 'New Europe' if Germany has won World War Two. France is more interesting. I doubt if she would be a 'puppet.' Probably independent but clear on where her best interests lay. I also don't see any reason why France's units would be 'poor quality.' Vichy troops demonstrated they were roughly as good as Commonwealth ones in Syria in 1941.



The Allies still control Middle-East and North Africa, why would Spain and Turkey swing to Axis then?

Anyways, the vichy units mostly melted away as far as I know...

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 3
RE: An idea - 4/2/2008 7:24:10 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
And what about Spain and Turkey?


Spain and Turkey will be part of the 'New Europe' if Germany has won World War Two. France is more interesting. I doubt if she would be a 'puppet.' Probably independent but clear on where her best interests lay. I also don't see any reason why France's units would be 'poor quality.' Vichy troops demonstrated they were roughly as good as Commonwealth ones in Syria in 1941.



The Allies still control Middle-East and North Africa, why would Spain and Turkey swing to Axis then?

Anyways, the vichy units mostly melted away as far as I know...


Vichy units emphatically did not 'melt away' at Dakar in 1940. As mentioned, in Syria in 1941, they put up a perfectly creditable fight. On Madagascar in 1942, they were completely outgunned, and in North Africa they were fighting after the Germans had occupied all of France. Even then, their 'token' resistance managed to inflict quite a few casualties on the landing Americans.

The notion that Vichy forces 'melted away' is in part a triumph of a pleasant fiction over an unpleasant reality. There's a scene in the film, the Big Red One (billed as an authentic memoir) where the Americans landing in North Africa yell 'if you're Vichy fight us: if you're Frenchmen, join us.' The 'good' French then shoot their evil officers and stream down to the beach for a group hug.

It's a fascinating triumph of desire over experience. Actually, the film shows what Americans expected would happen. As it was, a considerable number of young Americans died with what must have been startled expressions on their faces.

Same thing with the Australians who swarmed over the frontier of French Syria in 1941, asking 'where are the Germans?'

There weren't any Germans. Germans weren't going to be their problem.

After the war, people wanted the French to have been in the Allied camp all along. The French wanted to have been in the Allied camp all along. So obviously Vichy forces couldn't have fought -- and usually fought hard and effectively -- against the British.

Without seeking to define it more closely, the reality was considerably more complicated. In any case, absent some compelling reason to the contrary, French troops should have proficiencies about in line with Commonwealth troops. That's what the historical record suggests.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 4
RE: An idea - 4/2/2008 7:37:48 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
And what about Spain and Turkey?


Spain and Turkey will be part of the 'New Europe' if Germany has won World War Two. France is more interesting. I doubt if she would be a 'puppet.' Probably independent but clear on where her best interests lay. I also don't see any reason why France's units would be 'poor quality.' Vichy troops demonstrated they were roughly as good as Commonwealth ones in Syria in 1941.



The Allies still control Middle-East and North Africa, why would Spain and Turkey swing to Axis then?



This would depend on what precisely the details are. I'd say both powers were teetering on the brink as it was. If you're envisioning a Germany that has substantially improved on its situation as of 1940-41, then I'd say they'll have gone ahead and endorsed the winning candidate.

Paticularly if there has been an intervening period of peace, Germany would be able to bring an overwhelming combination of threats and inducements to bear on both Spain and Turkey. Why wouldn't they join the Axis?

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 5
RE: An idea - 4/2/2008 7:46:08 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 910
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
Because they would side against Allies. I was thinking of a situation of rather a cease fire than axis victory really. Ie. Soviets and germans beat each other to death on the east front, and western allies are unable to advance form Italy/Sicily.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 6
RE: An idea - 4/2/2008 7:56:37 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Because they would side against Allies. I was thinking of a situation of rather a cease fire than axis victory really. Ie. Soviets and germans beat each other to death on the east front, and western allies are unable to advance form Italy/Sicily.


Ah. Then I'd see both powers struggling mightily to remain on the sidelines -- as they historically did.

As to France, it follows that Germany has completely occupied metropolitan France as she eventually did. The Allies have presumably already occupied French North Africa, so there aren't any Vichy forces to speak of. They're all units on the Allied side.

As to how the cease-fire came to be, I'd suggest an unsuccessful attempt to land in France in 1943. Citadel was canceled, the German panzer forces were rushed west, and the Allied landing was thrown back into the sea with horrendous losses. The Germans then use the 'backhand' strategy Manstein had advocated in the east to flay the advancing Russians in the Ukraine. Stalin signs a separate peace, and Britain and America temporarily lose heart.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/2/2008 9:26:20 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 7
RE: An idea - 4/3/2008 1:14:22 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 910
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
Luckily didn't start doing this yet, as my comp crashed and I had to re-install windows, thus losing everything.

Anyways, yeah something like that. What would the weaponary look like? I am thinking that jet fighters etc. would still only be in 'research' or at best prototypes, as the war stopped raging and thus there was little need for their immediate research. Tigers and panthers for tank divisions?



(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 8
RE: An idea - 4/3/2008 7:15:05 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

Luckily didn't start doing this yet, as my comp crashed and I had to re-install windows, thus losing everything.

Anyways, yeah something like that. What would the weaponary look like? I am thinking that jet fighters etc. would still only be in 'research' or at best prototypes, as the war stopped raging and thus there was little need for their immediate research. Tigers and panthers for tank divisions?

Otherwise



That's always an interesting question: given a different timeline, what effect on weapon development?

However, you seem to have things more or less along historical lines up to 1943 -- by which time the jet fighter programme was well under way. Same for most of the weapons under consideration. In fact, by 1947, you could give the Germans the first MiG -- which they had a lot to do with anyway, I believe. About all we really skip is various late-war desperation like the He-162 and the Jagdtiger.

Otherwise, the Germans had recognized the need for a more coherent AFV scheme -- no fifty different systems and no interchangeable parts. Forget the details, but with peace and by 1947, it'd presumably have been implemented. Also, one would have to assume various next generation bombers and close support aircraft.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 9
RE: An idea - 4/3/2008 7:59:15 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 910
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
But would they have entered mass production?

I'm leaning towards 1943-45 weapons/equipment for the units at the start, but after say, a year or so start mass production of the more advanced equipment.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 10
RE: An idea - 4/3/2008 11:30:56 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

But would they have entered mass production?

I'm leaning towards 1943-45 weapons/equipment for the units at the start, but after say, a year or so start mass production of the more advanced equipment.



My impression is that the only reason the Germans didn't actually implement the plans we're discussing is that there wasn't time. Tank destroyers, etc were needed now -- no point in retooling plants if the result would be that Germany would be overrun before anything came on line.

It sounds like we're talking about Germany having gotten everyone to lay off about the end of 1943. They've got some breathing room, they see the problem, and they'd probably have the new scheme in place and up and running by 1945.

Naturally one wants to use weapons that are in the TOAW database -- but I don't think so. Four years of relatively uninterrupted, intensive development later, and the Germans would be fielding different weapons than they did in 1943. For their part, the Allies probably would have made a point of bringing on line whatever they came up with after the Sherman -- which was decidedly inadequate for its role.

Dunno if you were planning to bother with strategic bombing at all, but Speer mentions that the work that went into the V-2 could also have completed work on the Wasserfall guided AA missile. Kind of large for tactical use, but it would have shut down any Allied strategic bombing effort nicely had it worked as advertised -- and given peace breaking out, Hitler have might relaxed a bit in his demand for 'revenge' weapons. That'd be in place well before 1947 as well.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 11
RE: An idea - 4/3/2008 11:37:04 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
Note that you could just bag the ceasefire idea. Germany has smashed Overlord 1943 and then turned on the advancing Russians. Now it's 1944 and the bloodied but still resolute Allies are looking at Festung Germania. Same scenario -- just pushed forward three years. You can even leave the Russians in. Catastrophic losses in 1943 could easily have reduced them to manageable proportions. They didn't have infinite manpower -- appearances to the contrary.

It occurs to me, though, that you might want to figure the Allies never landed in Sicily and Italy. That would have been canceled had they decided to go ahead with a 1943 landing in France. Italy's still standing -- sort of.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 12
RE: An idea - 4/4/2008 6:28:01 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
I have been playing around with a 1950 version of Roundup so I've gone part way down this road.

A couple of things to think about... The Germans probably stay with a four squad, three company nine battalion infantry division if they win. One place to poke around for ideas is any examples of Heerstruktur II. Thats the first time they got to reorganize along their own lines without the exigencies of war or the madness of Hitler upon them. Look at the stuff the Heer wanted like the Leopard I and the Jagdpanzer Kanone as an AT/assault gun, and their brigade oriented panzer and panzer grenadier divisions, and then save all the really crazy heavy stuff for the SS troops -- like Gross-Deutchland on steroids.

Factor in recoilless rifles in place of the AT guns. Add in more heavy mortars like the 120. Subtract the 75mm IGs. The infantry squads should be heavy rifle at least and probably AT+. Think about stuff like an early TOW AT rocket. Figure their tank guns hit harder if they have more access to raw materials for harder projectiles an if they up-gun to 105's.

Add more artillery. I have been thinking about regimental artillery with six of the 150 mm IG and 6 of their rockets that have the same range. Could they have chosen to replace their 105's with a Russian style 122 or their own 125? Ina ny event they moved to an 18 gun battalion in support of their brigades and long range guns and rockets at division.

For the airplanes increase defense (which I'm guessing has to do with performace) and add in better AA factors due to switching to revolver cannons in the 20 or 30 mm range and better defense (if my theory is right) due to early adoption of swept wing jets or even delta wing types.

My 1950 infantry divisions will look something like this:

company:
12 heavy AT+
3 engineer
6 81 mm mortar
3 90 mm RR
some number of mmg's

battalion
3 infantry companies
6 120 mm mortars
6 20 mm guns

regiment/brigade
some sort of artillery battalion
some sort of recon platoon
some sort of heavier AAA platoon
some sort of heavy AT company, maybe heavier guns and rockets mixed, maybe armored and self-propelled.

Division
heavier artillery battalion
some sort of heavier AAA company
battalion of assault guns
battalion of SPAT or tanks
divisional recon company, probably not too heavily mechanized.

just a few random thoughts



< Message edited by Central Blue -- 4/4/2008 6:52:48 AM >


_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 13
RE: An idea - 4/9/2008 4:27:27 PM   
Karri

 

Posts: 910
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline
Here's how I figured the oob to look like. Most of aircraft and navy still missing. Also I figured I'll add an engineer brigade to each formation. Or all engineers to a single formations...something like one brigade per 10 divisions.

I still feel I forgot somethin big.


Germany:
300 infantry divisions
38 SS Panzer divisions
38 panzergrenadier divisions
10 mountain divisions
30 flak divisions


Italy:
4 mountain divisions
3 armored divisions
3 cavalry divisions
40 infantry divisions
4 motorised divisions
1 blackshirt division


Finland:
15 infantry divisions
1 armored division

Sweden:
12 infantry divisions
3 armoured brigades
1 panzergrenadier division



Estonia:
4 infantry divisions


Latvia:
4 infantry divisions


Lithuania:
4 infantry divisions


Ukraine:
4 cavalry divisions
20 infantry divisions


Hungary:
20 infantry divisions
2 armored divisions
1 cavalry division
1 border guard division
1 guard division
200 fighters
200 bombers

Romania:
2 guard divisions
2 armored divisions
4 AA-brigades
4 cavalry divisions
5 mountain divisions
18 infantry divisions
300 fighter aircraft
200 bombers
4 destroyers
3 torpedo-boats
1 submarine


Bulgaria:
16 infantry divisions
2 cavalry divisions
1 armored brigade
150 fighters
100 bombers

White Russia:
25 infantry divisions
10 cavalry divisions
1 armored division

Holland:
6 coastal forts
4 infantry divisions


Norway:
19 coastal forts

France:
37 coastal forts
12 infantry divisions
3 armored divisions

Belgium:
6 coastal forts
4 infantry divisions

Yougoslavia:
3 coastal forts
10 infantry divisions
10 anti partisan brigades

Denmark:
6 coastal forts
2 infantry divisions

Greece:
8 coastal forts
4 infantry brigades


(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> An idea Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.126