Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

England is mine

 
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] >> Time of Fury >> England is mine Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
England is mine - 12/15/2011 3:14:53 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1651
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
On 8/24/1940 I just puppeted England (could this even happen in RL?). US is still at peace, but England is now at war with it's colonies, Iraq, and Russia. So we have the British homeland fighting against other British solders in other locations (and I assume the US, if and when it joins the party). Seriously? Someone somewhere thought this could truely happen in RL?

Given these events, I would have to say that ToF is really a totally fantasty game set in the WWII period versus a true historical simulation of the era. So if that is what the devs and company really wanted, they did a great job. If on the other hand, they were going for historical (or some simblance of) accuracy, then they have totally failed.

Depending on how the patch process goes, we will have see which direction they truely wanted to go. If the fantasy direction, Hitler was obsessed with the occult so there is definately a great deal of possibilities in that direction. It they want to try and go back toward the historical side, then I think they have a great deal of work to do to get there.

The game is still fun and I am still glad I bought it, but someone needs to make a business decision on what type of game they really want. A historical simulation this is not.

BTW I now have 1200+ PP from puppeting England. A Bomb in '43 anyone

Another obsevation from puppeting England. All my troops which were past Edingbourh were all put back into the 'To Be Deployed' pool. So I can now take the entire force that was in England and magicly transport them to the Eastern front in a WEEK. Without using a single point of strategic transfer. We must of captured the teleportation device the Brits had completed right before they fell . Magic and sic fi. As I said, a true fantasy game.

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 12/15/2011 3:27:30 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 3:18:43 AM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3195
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
But nobody forced you to do that. You could have played with more historical choices, yourself, which would naturally have led to a more historical procession of events.


(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 2
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 3:34:06 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1651
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
What historical choices exactly are you refering to? Not invading England? So you make a game on WWII tell the player that if they want a historical game, you have to follow the historical path? Why would anyone want to play Germany then? We all know how that ended up in RL.

Plus the fact that Russia attacked Germany in 1940. So there is no way you can even do that even if you wanted to. Even taking that aside, the Baltic states are still nuteral, Finland is stil at war in the summer of 1940. So please tell me how I could even begin to create a simblance of WWII unless I played every country involved just so all the correct choices were made?

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 3
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 3:56:12 AM   
rogo727


Posts: 1334
Joined: 7/12/2011
From: Iowa
Status: offline
Sounds like someone should go from very easy to very hard setting :O

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 4
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 4:38:29 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
Operation Sea Lion is the weakest link in the game. I didn't vote for the current state of how easy it is to do it and succeed.

Its funny how you make a choice do something that was impossible in Real Life, Operation Sea Lion, but yet complain it is absurd to have the USA join the Allies when you make that choice.

Then you complain about Stalin declaring war upon you in 1940 because you did Operation Sea Lion.

I see conflicts in your statements.

Russia DOW is a perfect opportunity to stab Germany in the back, yet you complain it is not real.

I see conflicts in your statements.

It is very easy to cripple the German army if you perform Sea Lion. It just a matter of a few hours and testing.

Perhaps others will also ask to improve this aspect of the game.

(in reply to rogo727)
Post #: 5
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 5:06:19 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1651
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Russia would not have declared war if Germany invaded England in RL. Considering he had purged all his officers, Russia was in no shape to attack Germany. Geez read some history. I'm sorry to be so harsh in my comments but I have been playing games on this scale for a long time and have some idea of what I am talking about.

The GAME had Russia decalre war on me due to what I consider a bug. For some reason, when Russia declares war on Romaina (who was not even in the Axis at the time btw) automaticly instigates a war with Germany. Regardless of what Germany is doing in the West.

The deleraction of war was not a big deal as I still had enough troops on the border to invade. So far I have not seen a single problem that indicates I am 'crippled'. I have even started researching the A Bomb from my loot from England. I'll be happy to provide you with a save if you want.

As to difficult level goes, my expectation is to have some advantage over the AI at Normal and to be able do somewhat better that historical. Not crush everyone in sight.

No one has addressed the other issues I have raised.

- Teleporting units from one end of the map to another for free
- Allowing England to be puppeted so it is at war with itself
- The British navy to be absent from the channel while the troop/supply ships sail along

As I said before. I LIKE the game. I AM glad I bought it. It is just not anywhere close to being a historical simulation. Which is fine as far as I am concerned but others may not feel that way so they should know that.

One other issue you may need to examine is that each turn now the version of GB that is now at war with the English Union (?) have had messages pop up saying that it no longer wants to join the Allies and the percentage drops between 10-15 points. I have no idea what happens when it gets to zero, considering that the only Allied countries right now are Iraq and the English colonies. So if the colonies leave the Allies, will that mean that Iraq will then be the Allies leader ? Like I said fantasy land.

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 12/15/2011 5:07:17 AM >

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 6
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 5:10:21 AM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3195
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

What historical choices exactly are you refering to? Not invading England? So you make a game on WWII tell the player that if they want a historical game, you have to follow the historical path? Why would anyone want to play Germany then? We all know how that ended up in RL.

Plus the fact that Russia attacked Germany in 1940. So there is no way you can even do that even if you wanted to. Even taking that aside, the Baltic states are still nuteral, Finland is stil at war in the summer of 1940. So please tell me how I could even begin to create a simblance of WWII unless I played every country involved just so all the correct choices were made?


It's simple. When I play, for instance, I like to play it historically. I don't invade the Low Countries in Oct 39. I wait till May 1940. I wait to take Yugoslavia in 41. I don't pour German units into North Africa, and so on. I enjoy it that way. Makes a more historical game. My choice. I don't see the problem.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 7
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 5:25:13 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
- Teleporting units from one end of the map to another for free

This is the same for all similar games like HOI/HOI2
Anytime units are in another country's territory and there is a peace agreement the troops are deployed into the reserve pool.

- Allowing England to be puppeted so it is at war with itself
Same thing as above. This is what happens when an Alliance brakes up.

- The British navy to be absent from the channel while the troop/supply ships sail along
This is a technical issue. There is no way to stop a landing. Only thing to do is to program the difficulty against Germany once they land.



(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 8
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 5:43:49 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1651
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Sorry to keep harping on this, but Russia would NOT have gone to war with Germany for ANY reason in 1940 PERIOD. I have no idea of why you think it sould happen in the game, game balance, see what would happen, etc.? Any other reason is fine with me for having Russia declare war, just do not claim it would have been 'historical' because it would not be.

If 'everyone' thought that Russia would have declared war in 1940, then every WWII Europe game ever made from the 60's on would have had some provision for that to occur. As none that I recall (and I have played a lot of different flavors of these type of games), then the ponderance of evidence would suggest that it was not historically plasable for Russia to do that.

Now if there were too few German troops on the border, that could be a valid trigger, but as I had plenty on the border, that would not have worked.

Again Stalin HATED the West. He loved the fact that there were fighting each other. He would have wanted that to last as long as possible. He sure would not have put his own country at risk just because France and the low countries were attacked in 39 versus 40 and England invaded.

The last item as to why this would not have occured is that Russia had just finished up a civil war. There were huge groups of people that were looking for a reason to start it up again (Ukraine anyone). The major reason that Russia was able to fight off Germany in RL was, to a large part, beacuse Germay attacked Russia. Not the other way around.

With Russia decalring war first (AND breaking a treaty to do it) would have caused major issues with civil disorder. Germany could have used that to a great effect, promising to free the Ukraine, etc. So unless this increase in discent AND the pentaly of breaking a valid treaty is somewhere hidden in the code,having Russia produce as if Germay had attacked is VERY unhistorical.

Remember that even at this point in history, countries needed a casis beli to break treaties and attack. Romping over the West as Germany would not have risen to that level to justify to the Russian populace that breaking the treaty and going to war was vaild. This breaking would also have have very negitive reactions from the countries around Russia, like Turkey. Plus I imagine the US would not have looked kindly on Russia doing this either so I doubt any lend lease would have come their way.

So unless you are going to massively change how the diplomancy works when something like this happens to punish Russia for breaking her treatry for no good reason (they are not an Allied country so have no reason to 'help' the West), then having them attack in 1940 of what Germany does (or does not do) is absurd.

So the best we can do at this point is to agree to disagree.

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 9
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 5:57:28 AM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3195
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Sorry to keep harping on this, but Russia would NOT have gone to war with Germany for ANY reason in 1940 PERIOD. I have no idea of why you think it sould happen in the game, game balance, see what would happen, etc.? Any other reason is fine with me for having Russia declare war, just do not claim it would have been 'historical' because it would not be.




Not necessarily true. A recent book by a Russian author claims that Stalin was preparing and positioning for an early war. It's one of the reasons for the poor positioning of Soviet troops in 41.

Here's some revisionist stuff on Stalin's plans, as an example.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p40_Michaels.html


< Message edited by gwgardner -- 12/15/2011 6:03:44 AM >

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 10
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 6:05:21 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1651
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz

- Teleporting units from one end of the map to another for free

This is the same for all similar games like HOI/HOI2
Anytime units are in another country's territory and there is a peace agreement the troops are deployed into the reserve pool.

- Allowing England to be puppeted so it is at war with itself
Same thing as above. This is what happens when an Alliance brakes up.

- The British navy to be absent from the channel while the troop/supply ships sail along
This is a technical issue. There is no way to stop a landing. Only thing to do is to program the difficulty against Germany once they land.



In HoI the units are placed in the CLOSEST friendly provence to where they were located when the event took place. NOT put into the depoloyment pool. Then you actually have to move then to where you want them. In ToF, they go into the deployment pool where you can now place them ANYWHERE on the map you want. In a week. I hope you can see the difference between these two methods.

Sure I understand puppeting. It works great for small countries, Greece, etc. But England? Would that have even been a choice for them in RL?

It is not the puppeting that I have an issues with. It is the fact that with England, puppeting puts the English Union at WAR with other British subjects. I truely cannot imagine a situation where the now Nazi allies, English Union, are going to go off and start killing other British subjects. Or if the US attacks them that they are going to fight tooth and nail against the US? This is what I have difficult with in the game.

Again historically, England kept a significant protion of it's fleet in home waters for this very reason, to prevent an invasion. So what you appear to be saying is that the game is going to let the Jerries land by having the Amphs ignored by any fleets and/or planes nearby, and then have the game somehow crush them once ashore. Wow!

If the code cannot at this point even remotely model what would have occured, then I would much rather just have the game not allow Sea Lion at all. Not having major naval/air battles for control of the channel is a major issue imho. So if the model for naval action is too far gone to handle this, please do not cover it up with some other type of bandaid that makes things even more absurd.


(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 11
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 6:10:09 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1651
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Sorry to keep harping on this, but Russia would NOT have gone to war with Germany for ANY reason in 1940 PERIOD. I have no idea of why you think it sould happen in the game, game balance, see what would happen, etc.? Any other reason is fine with me for having Russia declare war, just do not claim it would have been 'historical' because it would not be.




Not necessarily true. A recent book by a Russian author claims that Stalin was preparing and positioning for an early war. It's one of the reasons for the poor positioning of Soviet troops in 41.

Here's some revisionist stuff on Stalin's plans, as an example.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p40_Michaels.html



From your article

In his speech of May 5, 1941, Stalin explained to graduate officers of military academies that the impending war would be fought offensively by Soviet forces, and that it would nonetheless be a just war because it would advance world socialism.

In 1941 he is talking about attacking Germany first not 1940. I do not see how this advances the viewpoint that a 1940 attack was wanted or desired by Russia.

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 12
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 6:13:16 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
I'm not going to argue with him. He needs to do more research. Stalin was preparing a first strike.

Back to the game... What did you pick for Ribbentrop Molotov Pact?

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 13
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 6:19:13 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1651
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
I would love to see some sources on Stalin wanting a 1940 attack as I have not seen any to date.

As I stated in another thread. I accepted it, Russia moved into Eastern Poland. I had about 50 strength points on the border and added to them over time.

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 14
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 6:44:51 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
Your jumping to conclusions on the game just like your opinions on history.

Thread is getting off track.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 15
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 8:12:49 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1651
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
I have tried to point out areas of the game that I think need help and explain my reasons as to why. These are, as you point out, are my opnions. Yiou can agree or disagee with them as you see fit. You think it is historically correct for Russia to declare war in 1940. I do not. So this is something we will just have to disagree on. No problem and we move on.

However, I really am interested in sources that can highlight that my understanding of what Stalin was considering in 1940. I was not trying to be sarcastic or anything else. If I came across that way I am sorry as that was not my intent. You obviously have some basis for having Russia attack in 1940 which I can only assume is based on readings/documentation that I am unaware of. So if you could share them, I can at least better understand why you feel so strong that a 1940 attack by Russia is plasiable history when I just do not see it based on my readings and experiences.

My conclusions on the game are based on my direct experiences so far. I do not have any knowledge of behind the scene data, coding, etc. I base these conclusions on a long time of playing these types of games, both board and computer versions. It is true that yours is different and does things that may not accurately reflect my understanding of how the game is working versus my peception of how it actually is working. While it is certainly within your right to say whatever you want and ignore my points of view. I was just hoping for a more detailed discussion than saying I am jumping to conclusions.

As this is my thread I guess I can take it off track if I want, right

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 16
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 10:11:35 AM   
cherryfunk

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/18/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz

I'm not going to argue with him. He needs to do more research. Stalin was preparing a first strike.

Not in 1940 he wasn't.

Puppeting the UK and having it join the war seems dubious -- not even a defeated France joined the war, and the UK was far more committed to the fight against fascism. Is there a government in exile? Does the rest of the Commonwealth continue the fight?




< Message edited by cherryfunk -- 12/15/2011 10:14:47 AM >

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 17
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 10:20:38 AM   
HanBarca


Posts: 464
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline
quote:

Puppeting the UK and having it join the war seems dubious -- not even a defeated France joined the war, and the UK was far more committed to the fight against fascism. Is there a government in exile? Does the rest of the Commonwealth continue the fight?


VERY dubious. An English army helping Hitler in his eastern campaigns. We're not talking about a "division of freedom" composed of fanatical english nazis, but of the whole nation. Looks almost like a novel by Harry Turledove.

< Message edited by HanBarca -- 12/15/2011 10:23:38 AM >


_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to cherryfunk)
Post #: 18
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 10:22:23 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1616
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz

- Teleporting units from one end of the map to another for free

This is the same for all similar games like HOI/HOI2
Anytime units are in another country's territory and there is a peace agreement the troops are deployed into the reserve pool.


Would it not be possible to introduce a delay before troops were placed in the pool, in a situation like this. They would be on leave, in transit, etc., and appear in the pool, 2 or 3, turns later.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 19
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 10:35:12 AM   
HanBarca


Posts: 464
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline
quote:

Would it not be possible to introduce a delay before troops were placed in the pool, in a situation like this. They would be on leave, in transit, etc., and appear in the pool, 2 or 3, turns later.


Sounds like a good idea, maybe with an algorithm based on the distance from the unit to its capital

_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 20
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 11:47:22 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1616
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
As I said before. I LIKE the game. I AM glad I bought it. It is just not anywhere close to being a historical simulation. Which is fine as far as I am concerned but others may not feel that way so they should know that.

One other issue you may need to examine is that each turn now the version of GB that is now at war with the English Union (?) have had messages pop up saying that it no longer wants to join the Allies and the percentage drops between 10-15 points. I have no idea what happens when it gets to zero, considering that the only Allied countries right now are Iraq and the English colonies. So if the colonies leave the Allies, will that mean that Iraq will then be the Allies leader ? Like I said fantasy land.


I haven't tried 'Sea Lion' yet, so cannot comment, except to say that it could never have been an easy operation, unless there was a complete British collapse.

However, on the point of how historical the game is, is it a historical simulation, or a simulation of history. One of the good parts about the game is that it can go in different directions. Stalin's actions in Finland and Romania helped trigger Hitler's long held desire to settle accounts with the USSR and a less agressive Soviet approach to Finland and Romania might have delayed Hitler's plans. The surrender of Britain in 1940 and access to World raw materials might have put off the German attack indefinitely.

Here's one example of how one decision could have changed the whole direction of the war on all fronts :

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 Armee Group B, he had changed his mind. The transfer was Halder's attempt to circumvent Rundstedt and Kliest's conservative attitude and their '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). Halder had wanted to get the panzers moving again, but Hitler, angered at not being consulted, decided to rescind the transfer and declared approval for Rundstedt's '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.

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 and it could have changed the whole course of the War.

The initial British prediction of possibly 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 the defence of Britain, 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 fantasy, but why should this not be a plausable scenario, Britain becomes an Axis puppet and Japan might benefit from the Axis side of the agreement and obtains access to raw materials from the former European Allies' South-east Asia possessions 'peacefully'. Just as Japan 'peacefully' accessed French possessions in Indo-China after Vichy France had negotiated a deal with Germany.

This happens long before Pearl Harbor is cast in stone and would the US then react, could they attempt to interdict this peaceful trade, would the US have been drawn into a war that was essentially over ?

I am not saying the game is perfect, there are features that I question, but I like the possible variations in the game and feel that situations that may seem impossible in the history that we have grown up with, may not be so fantastic, with surprisingly small changes.

I think the belief that Stalin was planning to attack Germany in 1940 is unlikely, but decisions can be changed and perhaps the early entry of the USSR should be set as an player option, or at least a warning issued when policy decisions may trigger major events.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 21
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 12:41:20 PM   
waichou

 

Posts: 115
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
I totally agree with Numdydar, I really like the gameplay, but I am very dissapointed with the diplomacy. I understand lots of scenarios can occurs, but it is still a WWII game (if I am wrong...). So ok, Russia attacks Hitler in early 1940 (and without Sealion for me, and Russia seems totally unready...), ok UK at war with its colony , ok Finland take Leningrad and Novgorod (in my game), and I am only in June 1940 !! What will happens in few months, USA and UK at war with Russia or something else ? Please, stop saying it is assumed choice of your part, I really think diplomacy settings should be reviewed, where is the fun if UK and Russia fall in 1940 both ? In my point of view you should :

- increase the UK defense for Sealion (it looks too simple, where is their fleet ?)
- stop Russia DOW in Romania AND Germany at the same time (it is a BUG)
- and if want absolutly want Russia DOW in 1940, increase their army !! Why they should attack if I don't see a single soldier entering in Poland (of course, because they are totally unprepared)

And about the discussion of Stalin wanted to declar war or not in 1940, I really don't think this is the matter, he finally didn't do it, and that is what we expect in a WWII wargame. And ToF is not HoI or HoI 2 I a understand ?

I repeat, I love the gameplay and I think the game has lot potential, but please, do something for this !


(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 22
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 12:51:03 PM   
waichou

 

Posts: 115
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline


[/quote]

It's simple. When I play, for instance, I like to play it historically. I don't invade the Low Countries in Oct 39. I wait till May 1940. I wait to take Yugoslavia in 41. I don't pour German units into North Africa, and so on. I enjoy it that way. Makes a more historical game. My choice. I don't see the problem.
[/quote]

Ok, I agree with you, but it won't change that Russia will declare war in 1940 because of Romania, and only god know what will happens with Finland (I hope I will take Moscow before them !)

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 23
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 3:09:32 PM   
cherryfunk

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

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

The scenario you outline is plausible, in that it could have led to a negotiated peace -- but how do you get from the UK reluctantly coming to the table to the UK becoming a puppet government, especially since not a single German soldier has set foot upon British soil in your scenario?


(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 24
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 6:07:23 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1616
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cherryfunk
quote:

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

The scenario you outline is plausible, in that it could have led to a negotiated peace -- but how do you get from the UK reluctantly coming to the table to the UK becoming a puppet government, especially since not a single German soldier has set foot upon British soil in your scenario?


Because 250,000+ British troops could be held hostage in Germany, after the failed Dunkirk evacuation and what terms do you think Hitler would put into such an armistice, what would be the price be of avoiding occupation, or would occupation be the price of peace. We will never know the answer, but it was the price that France had to pay.

I agree that the further you move into the realms of possibilities the less sure you can be, there is a high probability that if Hitler had changed his mind, then Dunkirk would have been a British disaster. The following probabilities get harder to justify the further you move from the changed event.

It is just an example that history does not have to run in any sequence, other possibilities are reasonably possible.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 12/15/2011 6:47:11 PM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to cherryfunk)
Post #: 25
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 7:26:53 PM   
cherryfunk

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
Because 250,000+ British troops could be held hostage in Germany, after the failed Dunkirk evacuation and what terms do you think Hitler would put into such an armistice, what would be the price be of avoiding occupation, or would occupation be the price of peace. We will never know the answer, but it was the price that France had to pay.

Vichy France was not a puppet government -- it had autonomy and it remained neutral. So no, there's no way that the UK would have succumbed to German hegemony because the BEF had been taken prisoner. Negotiated an armistice, perhaps, but become a puppet government? No way.

In any event it seems that the Sealion option is too easy in ToF, which, along with the borked Russian declaration of war, means I won't be playing for some time. But that's okay, Unity of Command is proving to be a remarkable little game.


(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 26
RE: England is mine - 12/15/2011 7:32:24 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5305
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
It shouldn't be a problem to mod a game in a way where there will be no British Union.

(in reply to cherryfunk)
Post #: 27
RE: England is mine - 12/16/2011 10:29:53 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1616
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cherryfunk
Vichy France was not a puppet government -- it had autonomy and it remained neutral. So no, there's no way that the UK would have succumbed to German hegemony because the BEF had been taken prisoner. Negotiated an armistice, perhaps, but become a puppet government? No way.


I don't think there is much advantage in a deep discussion, because the whole point about what-if scenarios is that they didn't happen and can't be proved. Was Vichy France a puppet government :

The Vichy leaders collaborated as far as ordering the French police and the local milice (militiamen) to go on raids to capture Jews and other minorities considered "undesirables" by Germany as well as political opponents and members of the Resistance, thus helping enforce German policy in occupied zones. Vichy also promulgated its own, German-inspired laws and policies that restricted political freedom and took rights away from foreigners and racial minorities. Wikipedia.

There is no way of telling how the British government, or people would have behaved in different circumstances, or if Lord Halifax had become Prime Minister, instead of Churchill. The main thing that all games suffer from is hindsight, if they are too historically rigid, we all know what is going to happen next. To be in the position of the real commanders, who did not know the script, it is good if the game contains some unexpected , or unpredictable events.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to cherryfunk)
Post #: 28
RE: England is mine - 12/16/2011 2:28:46 PM   
cherryfunk

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/18/2011
Status: offline
You're not using the term 'puppet government' correctly.  Vichy collaborated to an extent, yes, but it was not controlled by Germany. Most notably, it resisted German efforts to cooperate more fully in the war on Russia and the UK.  And further, we can know this much about the British -- they would not have succumbed even more to German hegemony than France did, given that their opposition was more entrenched, their resources far larger (most of them entirely out of Germany's reach) and -- in the scenario you posit -- entirely free of a German military presence within their borders.  The notion that a surrender at Dunkirk would have lead to Britain bowing down to Germany strikes me as ridiculous.  Far more likely that it would have stiffened British resistance.

Puppet State:

A puppet state (also known as puppet government or marionette government) is a nominal sovereign of a state who is de facto controlled by a foreign power. The term refers to a government controlled by the government of another country like a puppeteer controls the strings of a marionette. A puppet state has also been described as an entity which in fact lacks independence, preserves all the external of independence, but in reality is only an organ of another state who has set it up and whose satellite it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state




< Message edited by cherryfunk -- 12/16/2011 2:29:02 PM >

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 29
RE: England is mine - 12/16/2011 3:07:54 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1616
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cherryfunk
You're not using the term 'puppet government' correctly.  Vichy collaborated to an extent, yes, but it was not controlled by Germany. Most notably, it resisted German efforts to cooperate more fully in the war on Russia and the UK.  And further, we can know this much about the British -- they would not have succumbed even more to German hegemony than France did, given that their opposition was more entrenched, their resources far larger (most of them entirely out of Germany's reach) and -- in the scenario you posit -- entirely free of a German military presence within their borders.  The notion that a surrender at Dunkirk would have lead to Britain bowing down to Germany strikes me as ridiculous.  Far more likely that it would have stiffened British resistance.

Puppet State:

A puppet state (also known as puppet government or marionette government) is a nominal sovereign of a state who is de facto controlled by a foreign power. The term refers to a government controlled by the government of another country like a puppeteer controls the strings of a marionette. A puppet state has also been described as an entity which in fact lacks independence, preserves all the external of independence, but in reality is only an organ of another state who has set it up and whose satellite it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state


The WiTE forum is bogged down in the same endless discussions about whether this, or that event, might have happened. The point is that these are games and they are supposed to entertain, if they are constrained into a rigid formula of only those events that can be guaranteed to have happened, then we all know the script and what's coming next. I am playing Fall Gelb and the early Russian entry has triggered (see other thread), I know it's highly unlikely that it would have happened in reality, but it looks like it might turn into a good game.

I never used the phrase puppet state, that was your contribution, I merely said that Britain might have chosen to negotiate, rather than face a long war, loss of gold reserves and years of impoverishment, which followed the decision to fight on. This was helped by the euphoria of the Dunkirk miracle, which should not have succeeded, as I have proposed. I don't regret the decision the Britain made and it was the right choice, but there were many in the UK at the time, who if they had felt empowered by a disastrous Dunkirk, may have been prepared to seek another way.

I am happy to play any scenario that has a probability of having occurred. Even the Sea Lion possibility, which I think would never have happened in reality, is still the basis for a good game. Which in the end is what we want, a good game.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to cherryfunk)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> England is mine Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
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

0.136