Matrix Games Forums

Hell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Russian surrrender

 
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 >> Russian surrrender Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Russian surrrender - 12/28/2011 2:05:31 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1826
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
I assume that at some point in time a 'Bitter Peace' type event will fire for Russia. At least I hope so . If so what exactly is the trigger for the event?

That is the one thing I destested about ToW is that to defeat Russia, you had to capture EVERY city on the map (or was it kill every unit? either way I did not like it). So I am hoping that ToF will have some more 'realistic' option in this game.
Post #: 1
RE: Russian surrrender - 12/31/2011 3:52:41 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1826
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Well, I found out how to defeat Russia, you just need to capture all the VP cities. Should have been obvious now that I think about it lol. Could have saved a bunch of time by not going after other cites . Not sure why Arcangel is not a VP point city, but it is not.

The other question is would the Russians have really kept fighting all the way to the Urals? I would have thought that as more and more of Russia was overrun past Moscow/Stalingrad, that the seperate regions would have split off (like the Ukarine does) and forged a seperate peace with Germany.

So I think, after the big three cities have been captured, that should start an every turn check to see if Russia keeps fighting or not. As more of Russia is caputerd, the chance of it's triggering goes up. From a player's perception, it seems like a real chore to have to go so far past those cities just to knock Russia out. Especially since the Russian forces keep getting weaker and weaker. At least they did in my game

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 2
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 1:59:57 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
You are making a whole slew of assumptions that do not actually apply.

See, the reason the Russians keep on fighting, and would have, is because the Germans really gave them no option.

Remember all those welcoming Ukrainians and Byelorussians? Hated Stalin so much they welcomed the Nazis as liberators?

Well, did you know the German commanders didn't know how to handle this?

Probably not. Most people don't.

Do you know *why* they didn't know how to handle this?

Almost certainly not, as it is rarely, if ever, raised in general histories of the war, except in the most general, and therefore misleading, terms.

The reason the German commanders didn't know how to handle this was simply because the German operational and strategic planning requirements were based on the assumption that the population of the western USSR would be decreased, *in place* (i.e. not by deportation outside of the region), by 60% ... yes sixty percent ... within ten to twenty years.

What did this mean, in practise?

Deliberate starvation of the local population. Especially the local urban population. Initial plans were simply to cordon off major cities rather than capture and occupy them and shoot anyone who tried to leave, allowing little or no food in, and letting "nature" do the work for the Germans.

Yes, the German generals over-rode some of this planning, because, for example, the cities were transportation or industrial r communications hubs and simply surrounding and besieging them was actually militarily stupid.

And, of course, you'll argue, "I'm not Hitler. They didn't have to behave that way! The Russian people will welcome me and love me!"

Well, not so much, as it turns out.

Recent (say the last 20 years) research has shown that the Nazi state was a huge economic basket case, especially as regards food production.

The attack on Poland in 1939 was predicated on the understanding that the German farming sector would be so badly effected by the mobilisation of all those farmers sons (it was almost completely unmechanised, and so required much more manpower inputs than, say, British or American agriculture) that, unless they stripped food from conquered Poland there would be such a shortfall in domestic production that there would be famine.

So, the plan for Poland, in 1939, was to starve the population ... and they did just that ... to feed the victorious German burghers and their families.

When they attacked in the West in 1940, their occupation policies were to strip the occupied countries there to the bone, instituting severe rationing, and sending the food back home to Germany to support the populace at pretty much pre-war levels.

The planning for Barbarossa was predicated on the same assumptions.

So, if you *don't* murder/starve/exterminate those welcoming Ukrainians, Byelorussians etc. then it should, in reality, be at the expense of a *huge* hit to domestic unrest and production bottlenecks.

It didn't take long for the Russian people to do some pretty basic survival calculations and, basically, as a number of interesting (mainly British) Historians have shown, the results were that, as hated as Stalin was, his regime was predictably bad and, with a little care, you and your family had a better chance of surviving under it than under the Nazis.

This really doesn't change even if the Germans get to the Urals.

I doubt its modelled, but it should be.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 3
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 2:47:43 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1826
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Well, the game allows you to adjust the players attitude towards the emeny, mild to harsh. So historically I can see where the odds of surrender were low, but if I can puppet England, why not Russia before I get to the Urals? Also, I chose a Mild policy towards the Russians so their will to fight to the bitter end should be much reduced imho. So I think some combination of policy and military success should have some kind of impact on when Russia would give up.

After all in my game I created the Ukrane as a seperate country, why not allow others to be formed as well? The Ukraians were not the only seperatist group in the USSR that would have loved to break away.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 4
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 3:12:28 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Well, the game allows you to adjust the players attitude towards the emeny, mild to harsh. So historically I can see where the odds of surrender were low, but if I can puppet England, why not Russia before I get to the Urals? Also, I chose a Mild policy towards the Russians so their will to fight to the bitter end should be much reduced imho. So I think some combination of policy and military success should have some kind of impact on when Russia would give up.

After all in my game I created the Ukrane as a seperate country, why not allow others to be formed as well? The Ukraians were not the only seperatist group in the USSR that would have loved to break away.


Indeed, you *should* be allowed to do all that, and more.

But there should be consequences.

Ones that reflect historical reality.

So, for example, if you wish to choose a "mild" policy towards Russia, that would mean, historically, attempting to starve/murder/exterminate "only* 30% of the population over 10-20 years

Or, if you wanted a something resembling a genuine "anti-bolshevik campaign", then there is economic reality that will hit ...

* Severe Rationing instituted in Germany. Unrest skyrockets and the chance of a military coup/assassination plot against Hitler et al increases exponentially

(NB: Nazi control actually got more absolute after the Bomb Plot failed. More extreme. Before that, well, lets say that their laxity, relative, let the plotters get as far as they did)

* Economic knock on effects reduce the PP gained from captured Russian cities by, oh, I dunno, half? More than half?

* Economic knock on effects reduce the resources from captured Russian resources by the same sort of amount.

* Supply cost for German units in the former USSR goes up significantly (they can't just strip the countryside bare like organised locusts any more)

They're the obvious problems off the top of my head.

See, most people don't understand that the Nazi state was a robber state. It could only survive by stripping food, workers, resources, and manufactured goods from the areas it conquered. Economically it had to do what it did to survive as long as it did ... either that or win the war, get a peace treaty with the Allies and Russia more or less simultaneously, at which point it could use the creative economics Schacht used before the war to keep things afloat till either ...

a) it fell apart from due to its ideological and economic contradictions (pretty likely)

or

b) it managed to work out something that would keep things metastable (like Stalinist Russia and its successors through to the 1980's ... only a medium term solution, at best)

or

c) it united with Japan to conquer the world (come on, seriously )

So, yes, mildness with severe consequences is fine!

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 5
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 5:25:43 AM   
rogo727


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/12/2011
From: Iowa
Status: offline
Your Theory of why buy the cow when you get the milk for free is an assumption all in itself. The Ukrainians and Byelorussians would have gladly joined the Germans if the Germans wanted them to. It was the German (and yes the German commanders knew how to handle this) policy however that made this simply not on option as it would have went against German propaganda and ideology to do so.
quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

You are making a whole slew of assumptions that do not actually apply.

See, the reason the Russians keep on fighting, and would have, is because the Germans really gave them no option.

Remember all those welcoming Ukrainians and Byelorussians? Hated Stalin so much they welcomed the Nazis as liberators?

Well, did you know the German commanders didn't know how to handle this?

Probably not. Most people don't.

Do you know *why* they didn't know how to handle this?

Almost certainly not, as it is rarely, if ever, raised in general histories of the war, except in the most general, and therefore misleading, terms.

The reason the German commanders didn't know how to handle this was simply because the German operational and strategic planning requirements were based on the assumption that the population of the western USSR would be decreased, *in place* (i.e. not by deportation outside of the region), by 60% ... yes sixty percent ... within ten to twenty years.

What did this mean, in practise?

Deliberate starvation of the local population. Especially the local urban population. Initial plans were simply to cordon off major cities rather than capture and occupy them and shoot anyone who tried to leave, allowing little or no food in, and letting "nature" do the work for the Germans.

Yes, the German generals over-rode some of this planning, because, for example, the cities were transportation or industrial r communications hubs and simply surrounding and besieging them was actually militarily stupid.

And, of course, you'll argue, "I'm not Hitler. They didn't have to behave that way! The Russian people will welcome me and love me!"

Well, not so much, as it turns out.

Recent (say the last 20 years) research has shown that the Nazi state was a huge economic basket case, especially as regards food production.

The attack on Poland in 1939 was predicated on the understanding that the German farming sector would be so badly effected by the mobilisation of all those farmers sons (it was almost completely unmechanised, and so required much more manpower inputs than, say, British or American agriculture) that, unless they stripped food from conquered Poland there would be such a shortfall in domestic production that there would be famine.

So, the plan for Poland, in 1939, was to starve the population ... and they did just that ... to feed the victorious German burghers and their families.

When they attacked in the West in 1940, their occupation policies were to strip the occupied countries there to the bone, instituting severe rationing, and sending the food back home to Germany to support the populace at pretty much pre-war levels.

The planning for Barbarossa was predicated on the same assumptions.

So, if you *don't* murder/starve/exterminate those welcoming Ukrainians, Byelorussians etc. then it should, in reality, be at the expense of a *huge* hit to domestic unrest and production bottlenecks.

It didn't take long for the Russian people to do some pretty basic survival calculations and, basically, as a number of interesting (mainly British) Historians have shown, the results were that, as hated as Stalin was, his regime was predictably bad and, with a little care, you and your family had a better chance of surviving under it than under the Nazis.

This really doesn't change even if the Germans get to the Urals.

I doubt its modelled, but it should be.

Phil


(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 6
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 5:56:13 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1826
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Yes but as the Leader of the State (which is the thrust of the game), you can chose in a limited way how you will treat people you invade. So as Germany you could chose to be a liberater versus how they were historically. So if I am given the option of creating the Ukraine (which I was in my game), then why not other parts of the USSR as well?

(in reply to rogo727)
Post #: 7
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 6:23:54 AM   
rogo727


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/12/2011
From: Iowa
Status: offline
I agree. You have some valid points.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 8
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 7:31:07 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Your Theory of why buy the cow when you get the milk for free is an assumption all in itself. The Ukrainians and Byelorussians would have gladly joined the Germans if the Germans wanted them to. It was the German (and yes the German commanders knew how to handle this) policy however that made this simply not on option as it would have went against German propaganda and ideology to do so.


It's not my anything. Its the work of a lot of very smart Historians and Economists who have actually studied the guts of the German (and Allied, and Soviet) records for the last 60 odd years (some of them very odd, until 1989 or so).

It's also more than a theory. It's pretty widely accepted in the non-coffee table WW2 book scene.

Do you, personally, have to play it that way.

Of course not.

However, since you, personally, believe you have a perfectly reasonably expectation to have the game based around fantasies that simply weren't possible, or were only possible with severe disadvantages that you wish to handwave away, and I don't disagree with this, how about accepting that people who want to have something close(ish) to reality have the same right?

Have a fantasy scenario or scenarios, by all means!

Just at least have the option of a historical one for those of us who want that ... or at least allow it to be modded for.

YMMV

Phil


_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to rogo727)
Post #: 9
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 7:35:52 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2234
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
hmmm ... this is getting interesting (grabs popcorn and settles down to watch the flame war)

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 10
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 7:40:16 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Yes but as the Leader of the State (which is the thrust of the game), you can chose in a limited way how you will treat people you invade. So as Germany you could chose to be a liberater versus how they were historically. So if I am given the option of creating the Ukraine (which I was in my game), then why not other parts of the USSR as well?


Yes, indeed. But the Germans behaved the way they did because of things that were often partly or even entirely out of control.

Sort of like the Japanese efforts at wargaming WW2 in the Pacific.

You know the story?

After the Diplomats and Military Attaches to UK and USA were exchanged for their allied counterparts, they were gathered together and told to act as the Allies in a kriegspiel meant to help the IJA/IJN game out strategic alternatives.

Of course, they were loaded down with all sorts of limitations that simply didn't apply to the real world allied economies ... and gave the IJA/IJN fantasy alternatives (not enough oilers to let the Kido Butai carry out that operation? No probs! Pretend they exist! Out of fuel? No probs! Pretend it appears like manna from heaven! Can't get enough soldiers there in time because of transport bottlenecks, and can't supply 'em when they do get there? No probs! Magic everything so that the fantasyland express delivers it all)yet, within two game years the Allied forces were running wild all across the Pacific.

At which the IJN High Command terminated the game. Their reason? The Spirit of Banzai would overcome all.

Do you want to play a fantasy scenario that handwaves away economic and logistical reality?

Fine. I have no problem with that.

However, I want the option of a game scenario that adheres reasonably closely to such reality.

YMMV.

Phil
Need I point out that the Allied players in that game were correct?



_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 11
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 7:46:20 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

hmmm ... this is getting interesting (grabs popcorn and settles down to watch the flame war)


No. I've been involved in flame wars over this in soc.history.what-if where, as one would expect, some grounding in the real world limits is de rigeur ... and this ain't even close.

It's merely the "gamer" crowd, who want something that's fun to play, and balanced ... which means only vaguely, if at all, realistic ... vs the "simulation" or "historical" crowd who want something that is closer to the real world.

I have no problem at all with "gamer" style scenarios ... what I have a problem with is game engines that cannot represent reality in any meaningful way. Time of Fury is not in that category, as far as I can tell!

I don't think the others have a problem with "historical" scenarios, either, they just reserve the right to not want to play them.

So neither of us really have a problem, we're merely explaining our divergent points of view.



Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 12
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 1:09:25 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1826
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Yes but as the Leader of the State (which is the thrust of the game), you can chose in a limited way how you will treat people you invade. So as Germany you could chose to be a liberater versus how they were historically. So if I am given the option of creating the Ukraine (which I was in my game), then why not other parts of the USSR as well?


Yes, indeed. But the Germans behaved the way they did because of things that were often partly or even entirely out of control.

Sort of like the Japanese efforts at wargaming WW2 in the Pacific.

You know the story?

After the Diplomats and Military Attaches to UK and USA were exchanged for their allied counterparts, they were gathered together and told to act as the Allies in a kriegspiel meant to help the IJA/IJN game out strategic alternatives.

Of course, they were loaded down with all sorts of limitations that simply didn't apply to the real world allied economies ... and gave the IJA/IJN fantasy alternatives (not enough oilers to let the Kido Butai carry out that operation? No probs! Pretend they exist! Out of fuel? No probs! Pretend it appears like manna from heaven! Can't get enough soldiers there in time because of transport bottlenecks, and can't supply 'em when they do get there? No probs! Magic everything so that the fantasyland express delivers it all)yet, within two game years the Allied forces were running wild all across the Pacific.

At which the IJN High Command terminated the game. Their reason? The Spirit of Banzai would overcome all.

Do you want to play a fantasy scenario that handwaves away economic and logistical reality?

Fine. I have no problem with that.

However, I want the option of a game scenario that adheres reasonably closely to such reality.

YMMV.

Phil
Need I point out that the Allied players in that game were correct?




I am just trying to apply logic to a game engine. A 'tilting at windmill' exercise if there ever was one

I am not talking about the historical record, as ToF is way outside of that (at least under the current version of the game 1.0). I totally understand that if any game accurately represented what German control was like in the occuppied countries (do this or die basicly), the vast majority would never want to play them

My point is that if the game allows me to do X (create the Ukraine) based on my choices in the game, why will it not allow me to do Y (or Z, or W) when these are all similar in nature?

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 13
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 1:19:32 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5320
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
The issue is that there was not really anything else than X.
Ukrainians where the only major nation in the Western part (the one represented in the game) of the SU.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 14
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 1:20:56 PM   
RandomAttack


Posts: 151
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline
While much of the underlying data may be true in their piece parts, analysis of hypotheticals by economists (don't even get me started on all the mistakes THEY have made) and scholars can be just as misguided as analysis by "coffee table" folks. It inevitably reduces these events to numbers games and leaves out the "human" equation. On paper, the feats of Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, etc., are absurd! Preposterous! Couldn't possibly have happened! Nothing wrong with promulgating those theories of course, but to imply they rise to the level of "fact" is just wrong. It's also amusing to see how history changes based on who's doing the analysis.

- What if FDR had decided to focus on Japan first (very possible politically)?
- What if U.S. carriers had been at Pearl Harbor?
- What is the U'S. had lost the Battle of Midway (you could argue we were pretty darn lucky)?
The list is endless.

Here in the U.S. we have a term for this: Monday-morning quarterbacking (ref to football). It's quite easy, after the game is over, to analyze an upset and explain WHY it happened. Or analyze a loss and say "if they had only done this". On paper, U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should have been completely over within a year or so-- and 10+ years later, here we are. It's easy to sit back in our recliners, tamp our pipes, and say "of course old man, it was inevitable due to the economic, social and cultural factors", etc. It also totally misses the point that, at high levels, real people screwed up royally. It didn't HAVE to be that way.

My personal opinion is that 1) Hitler screwed up by attacking Russia in the first place; and 2) his absolutely worst mistake. once doing so, was not to embrace all the folks (like the Ukrainians) who would have willingly fought along side him if he had just given them decent treatment and a little hope. Apparently some folks want to explain away #2 as an economic inevitability, when it seems the truth is much simpler: Hitler was a nutjob about certain things ("racial superiority" being one of them). Darn-- there go those real people again, doing illogical things and messing up all the equations.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 15
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 3:24:52 PM   
rogo727


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/12/2011
From: Iowa
Status: offline
You give no sources, and you seem to be ranting about some sort of fantasy that I have? Try reading these books (note not coffee table books)
Absolute War by Chris Bellamy- Soviet Russia in the second word war.
The Russo-German War 1941-1945 by Albert Seaton
The Rise and Fall of the Thrid Reich by William Shirer
Also you state that Hitlers greatest blunder was the the attack on Russia ........even the smartest economist will tell you that it was Germany's declaration on the united states that lead to Germany's defeat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Your Theory of why buy the cow when you get the milk for free is an assumption all in itself. The Ukrainians and Byelorussians would have gladly joined the Germans if the Germans wanted them to. It was the German (and yes the German commanders knew how to handle this) policy however that made this simply not on option as it would have went against German propaganda and ideology to do so.


It's not my anything. Its the work of a lot of very smart Historians and Economists who have actually studied the guts of the German (and Allied, and Soviet) records for the last 60 odd years (some of them very odd, until 1989 or so).
(source ?????????)
It's also more than a theory. It's pretty widely accepted in the non-coffee table WW2 book scene.
{Source??????????}
Do you, personally, have to play it that way.

Of course not.

However, since you, personally, believe you have a perfectly reasonably expectation to have the game based around fantasies that simply weren't possible, or were only possible with severe disadvantages that you wish to handwave away, and I don't disagree with this, how about accepting that people who want to have something close(ish) to reality have the same right?
(Can't figure out what he is going off on)
Have a fantasy scenario or scenarios, by all means!

Just at least have the option of a historical one for those of us who want that ... or at least allow it to be modded for.

YMMV

Phil




< Message edited by rogo727 -- 1/1/2012 8:49:03 PM >

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 16
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/1/2012 9:32:30 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1826
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

The issue is that there was not really anything else than X.
Ukrainians where the only major nation in the Western part (the one represented in the game) of the SU.


I find that odd as many of the other groups were at least as big as Bulgeria. So I would have thought that more areas than the Ukriane could be formed. If not that is fine. At least the Ukriane is represented which is a good thing imho.

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 17
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/2/2012 5:25:52 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
"Hitler screwed up by attacking Russia in the first place."

<sigh>

<holds head in hands>

Where to begin?

You *do* know that, from the get go, before the Nazis were even in power, Hitler's aims, as explicitly stated in Mein Kampf (and the Second Book), were to gain lebensraum in the East. By eliminating Poland and seizing most of Russia west of the Urals?

Sure, "politicians promises" ... except for the fact that Hitler made serious attempts to fulfill most if not all of what he actually said in the two books. Didn't leave much out, either.

So, in fact, WW2 started because Hitler was attempting to fulfill his promises.

Step 1: Attack Poland.

Expectation: Allies roll over and play dead.

Surprise: Allies declare war.

Response: A two front war is a "bad thing" ... to attack the USSR (intended Step 2), you need to eliminate that possibility ... so attack in the west.

Step 2: Attack the USSR when the western allies are defeated.

OK. You say you are not Hitler.

We have this argument in soc.history.what-if all the time ... new posters, often (not always) with minimal knowledge of the strategic and economic realities facing the parties involved, propose pretty much the exact same sort of thing you are ...

... and say, "I'm not Hitler. Why should I behave as he did?"

To which we generally, initially, at least, gently point out that, OK, Hitler did what he did for very good reasons ... see above ... so why are you invading Russia? You don't need to, especially if you're "Not Hitler".

And we then point out, "Well, then, I'm playing the role of Not Stalin, and I don't do the Purges. The Red Army stages Icebreaker in 1939 and crushes the woefully inadequate Wehrmacht with its Panzer 1s/IIs and Czech rubbish with our T-34s, which, as Not Stalin, we decided to produce instead of everything else"

And, "Then, as Not Chamberlain rearmed the UK in 1934, the British are actually prepared for an attack against Germany in 1939, as are the French led by Not Daladier who get rid of the morons in the French High Command, placing De Gaulle in Command, and together they crush the German Army in the west and march on Berlin, saving the Poles!"

See, two can play, as we call it here in Oz, "Silly Buggers" ...

If you want the Germans unconstrained by political, economic or military reality, then *I* want the French and the British and the Russians and the US equally unconstrained.

Turn about is fair play, after all.

YMMV

Phil

< Message edited by aspqrz -- 1/2/2012 9:07:56 AM >

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 18
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/2/2012 5:41:05 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727
You give no sources, and you seem to be ranting about some sort of fantasy that I have? Try reading these books (note not coffee table books)


Tooze, "Wages of Destruction"
Harrison (Ed), "The Economics of WW2: Six Great Powers in International Comparison"
Harrison & Barber, "The Soviet Home Front, 1941-45: A Social and Economic History"

come off the top of my head. There are others, as well as journal articles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727
Absolute War by Chris Bellamy- Soviet Russia in the second word war.
The Russo-German War 1941-1945 by Albert Seaton
The Rise and Fall of the Thrid Reich by William Shirer


Absolute War is fine, but, of course, Bellamy makes the point that WW2 was won on the East Front. By the Russians. Not what you seem to be saying he is claiming at all.

Seaton is OK, but also dated, as I noted a lot of this stuff only starts to get out of very specialist literature in the last 20 years or so. And Seaton, writing a broad general history of the Eastern Front is, of course, not really going to get it, since he's writing 19 years ago. It would be interesting to see what he might add to a revised, updated, and rewritten version.

Shirer? A journalist. In a book written 50 odd years ago. Before the information in the books I have cited was available widely?

Oh, I see, you're joshing me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727
Also you state that Hitlers greatest blunder was the the attack on Russia ........even the smartest economist will tell you that it was Germany's declaration on the united states that lead to Germany's defeat.


And even Bellamy, whom you cite, disagrees with you.

And the thing Hitler feared so much that he attacked in the West in 1940 to avoid it was a two front war, as he knew that the relative strength of the Wehrmacht vis a vis the Red Army was declining rapidly.

Look, seriously, I'm not intending to dis you, and I apologise if you mistakenly see it that way. I am merely pointing out that the sort of books *you* are citing, are, well, not really the specialist works *I* have read and which support what I am saying.

Make of that what you will <sigh>

Phil

(in reply to rogo727)
Post #: 19
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/2/2012 5:46:05 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

The issue is that there was not really anything else than X.
Ukrainians where the only major nation in the Western part (the one represented in the game) of the SU.


Why not Byelorussia?

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 20
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/2/2012 9:09:38 AM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5320
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
I was not able to find any documents which would prove that nationalists tendencies in Byelorussia were as high as in Ukraine or Croatia.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 21
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/2/2012 11:30:16 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
OK, fair enough.

I would note, however, that was an (unsuccessful) revolt against the Russians in the 19th century, struggles continuing against russification into the 20the century.

There was also a distinct Belarus language and culture, at least as distinct as Ukrainian.

The fact that there was massive fighting through and over the area, massive evacuation (20% of the population) by the Russians in the face of the German advance, and massive destruction in general on a larger scale than in the Ukraine may have had something to do with the situation.

Not as high a chance as Ukraine, but if we're talking a "milder" German policy, perhaps there should be a "mildest" one, which encourages the formation of a puppet, as they did in WW1 at a low level of probability, at least as an option.

After all, Not Hitler would have done it

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 22
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/2/2012 2:11:45 PM   
rogo727


Posts: 1416
Joined: 7/12/2011
From: Iowa
Status: offline
First let me start of by saying <sigh> then let me say it again <sigh>. I have read Wages of Destruction, by far the best book you have listed. the other two books you wrote down are so popular that they have zero reviews on Amazon. <sigh> Back to the point at hand Tooze states that the US bombing of the Ruhr stopped Hitlers economy it it's tracks. There is more of course. Yes the war was won on the Eastern Front, but it's deeper than that as Bellamy points out....i.e aid from the allies a second front, and so on. But again I say to you ANY book written by an economist is Theory only. It's not a science at all. You could have 10 economist in the same room and get 10 different theorys and points of view. Their main point is this, if you run out of money, print more. So any book or person that pushes econ on people I always take with a grain off salt. end <sigh>
quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727
You give no sources, and you seem to be ranting about some sort of fantasy that I have? Try reading these books (note not coffee table books)


Tooze, "Wages of Destruction"
Harrison (Ed), "The Economics of WW2: Six Great Powers in International Comparison"
Harrison & Barber, "The Soviet Home Front, 1941-45: A Social and Economic History"

come off the top of my head. There are others, as well as journal articles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727
Absolute War by Chris Bellamy- Soviet Russia in the second word war.
The Russo-German War 1941-1945 by Albert Seaton
The Rise and Fall of the Thrid Reich by William Shirer


Absolute War is fine, but, of course, Bellamy makes the point that WW2 was won on the East Front. By the Russians. Not what you seem to be saying he is claiming at all.

Seaton is OK, but also dated, as I noted a lot of this stuff only starts to get out of very specialist literature in the last 20 years or so. And Seaton, writing a broad general history of the Eastern Front is, of course, not really going to get it, since he's writing 19 years ago. It would be interesting to see what he might add to a revised, updated, and rewritten version.

Shirer? A journalist. In a book written 50 odd years ago. Before the information in the books I have cited was available widely?

Oh, I see, you're joshing me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727
Also you state that Hitlers greatest blunder was the the attack on Russia ........even the smartest economist will tell you that it was Germany's declaration on the united states that lead to Germany's defeat.


And even Bellamy, whom you cite, disagrees with you.

And the thing Hitler feared so much that he attacked in the West in 1940 to avoid it was a two front war, as he knew that the relative strength of the Wehrmacht vis a vis the Red Army was declining rapidly.

Look, seriously, I'm not intending to dis you, and I apologise if you mistakenly see it that way. I am merely pointing out that the sort of books *you* are citing, are, well, not really the specialist works *I* have read and which support what I am saying.

Make of that what you will <sigh>

Phil




< Message edited by rogo727 -- 1/2/2012 9:47:11 PM >

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 23
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/2/2012 5:27:54 PM   
RandomAttack


Posts: 151
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline
quote:

"Hitler screwed up by attacking Russia in the first place."

<sigh>

<holds head in hands>

Where to begin?


Oh, the histrionics! The false humilty! The condescension to the ignorant masses!

So, the wheels of history are virtually inevitiable. Studies show each event was virtually pre-ordained, and couldn't have possibly (in any realistic sense) played out in any other way. After-the-fact analysis proves it so. Well, I'm throwing the B.S. flag. I don't believe anything is/was pre-ordained where PEOPLE are involved. It is perfectly realistic for any of the leaders to have chosen reasonable alternate paths (I'm talking REASONABLE here, not the UK attacking France w/Germany, etc). Indeed, many paths actually chosen seem UN-reasonable in the present day. I utterly reject that all these decisions were made for "good reasons". The people making these decisions were imperfectly human. Then, as now, decisions weren't always made "rationally", and were OFTEN affected by personal biases, bad/incomplete info, incompetence, etc.

Hitler attacked Russia solely for economic & strategic reasons, huh? Of course, the calculus wasn't impacted at all by the fact he considered them "sub-human", and therefore was as overconfident as we would be stepping on a bug. And thus the totally unforgivable oversight of failing to prepare for the first winter-- "soldiering 101". So much for the "brilliant" General Staff. How "illogical". We are all free to surmise what Stalin would have done if Hitler hadn't attacked--but we don't KNOW. Did he actually have the balls to attack Germany? Was he so secure in his own position?

The game models combat and logistics in a reasonable manner (and is being improved), the FUN is in exploring reasonable alternatives-- i.e., the human factor.

It's kinda like being attacked by a 2 year old throwing a tantrum. What on Earth makes him think he can win, and why is he doing it? It's an irrational world sometimes...

(in reply to rogo727)
Post #: 24
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/2/2012 5:42:24 PM   
RandomAttack


Posts: 151
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline
quote:

You could have 10 economist in the same room and get 10 different theorys and points of view


Not so-- you would get at LEAST 11 theories...

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 25
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/2/2012 6:26:59 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 8543
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
thats the old joke I heard way back in college, 5 econimist 6 theories and no working models

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 26
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/3/2012 12:54:21 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

So, the wheels of history are virtually inevitiable. Studies show each event was virtually pre-ordained, and couldn't have possibly (in any realistic sense) played out in any other way. After-the-fact analysis proves it so.



Nope. Didn't say that.

Not even close.

What I said, and what the post said, and what all my posts have said ... if you read them ... is that there were certain real world factors (military-logistic, economic, political and what have you) that constrained the acts of the participants in WW2 to act in certain ways with a high degree of probability ... and which would, inevitably, have had consequences, negative ones mostly, if they had been ignored.

So, the Germans were constrained to act in certain ways and there were inevitable consequences if they had not.

That's well understood by most people.

Let's take a couple of examples that most people (here, at least) seem to accept as underpinning their choices ... insofar as the designers have chosen to incorporate them in their soon to be (hopefully) released patch ...

* AI limited to producing fleets only of historical size
* German casualties for Amphibious operations increased and cost of Amph points increased

Looking at the first, the Germans came up with their Naval Rearmament program, the Z Plan, in 1937 ... massive fleet build. Many BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, 2+ CVs, 400+ Submarines ... to be complete by 1949/50.

Why did they not get further than they did? What prevented them? Or made it less likely?

Real World Constraints.

See, the German Economy in 1937 was a Command Economy, in many ways like that of Stalinist Russia. Goering was in charge of all resource allocation.

The resources available, especially factory space, skilled workers, and, most importantly, steel, were available in finite amounts ... and they had almost all already been allocated. To the Wehrmacht's Panzers, Artillery and etc. and the the Luftwaffe's fighters, bombers and transports.

To build more ships would, inevitably, have led to building less ... much, much, much less ... tanks, guns, planes and the like.

You simply cannot have it both ways.

Still, yes, the Nazis *tried* ... they allocated an adequate Budget to build all the needed vessels.

Money.

What they didn't allocate ... couldn't, because there wasn't any excess to allocate ... were workers, factories, and, more importantly, resources.

Now, historically, as it turned out, even capturing Poland, France, Belgium, Holland etc. didn't really change that. Sure, more factories, more skilled workers ... but, really, no more steel or oil or anything else on the scale that was needed to fuel and supply them. And, of course, the workers in said factories weren't exactly willing to produce military stuff for the Germans that worked all that well.

A lot of the resources they used before they were conquered were imported. And then moment they were conquered, all those resources, unless in internal stockpiles, went "poof" as the RN blockaded them and stopped all further trade.

Now, ToF models this relatively poorly in some ways ... hence the need for limits on AI choices to build German ships ... because PPs are so generic. In reality, either the cost of producing German vessels and amphibs should be increased massively for human players or the same limits should apply to them as to the AI, because PPs don't adequately represent the reality on the ground.

If this is unacceptable, then it should be that you are as ready to accept unrealistic results for the allies as well as for the Germans ...

Then there's German Amphibious Operations ... aka Sealion ... which, basically, every single serious examination agrees was impossible and would have been a disastrous failure for the Germans, and, indeed, agree that German planning was of the "this is complete wish fulfilment fantasy" level. The few scenarios (massively outweighed by those who see it as a fantasy) that treat it as a possibility, if you examine them closely, assume the Germans magically get ashore somehow and then magically supply themselves by ignoring the existence of the RAF and RN.

Since the AI seems to handle things Naval so badly, then, again, there should be some constraint that makes German amphibious operations extremely difficult ... increased cost of Amph points for a start, increased casualties from Amphibious operations, increased supply costs for Panzers by Sea ... and, actually, this is really not even close to how tough it would have been in reality ... for a start, the presence of even a single naval unit (not Fleet with many units, a single *unit*) belonging to the allies in the Channel Zone should automatically interdict all supply and reinforcement, and, probably, prevent any passage by German units, unless first destroyed by ... something ...

Which would require a much bigger than historical Luftwaffe and a much bigger than historical Kriegsmarine ... which would mean a much smaller than historical Wehrmacht ... the resources available constrained German options here, as in so many other areas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

Well, I'm throwing the B.S. flag.

It's kinda like being attacked by a 2 year old throwing a tantrum.


Ignoring reality because you, personally, don't believe it to be reality? Yep.

Look, no-one, least of all me, is telling you that you have to play a closely historical scenario ... I think its fine that you want a gamist one, if that suits you ... but it doesn't suit me, so how about the courtesy of allowing those of us who actually want something close to historical constraints applied in ways that don't suit you, personally, to have the option of such.

Possibly, I guess, the designers could make adding historical constraints to the AI side the "balance" factor for "Hard" and "Very Hard" advantage in the game system, or simply add "Historical" as the level beyond "Very Hard" ... which would keep you and the gamer folk happy, and allow those of us who want historicity to have the option.

No need to be so defensive, since you're not being told you have to play it that way.

Phil


_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to RandomAttack)
Post #: 27
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/3/2012 8:48:15 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2234
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:


What I said, and what the post said, and what all my posts have said ... if you read them ... is that there were certain real world factors (military-logistic, economic, political and what have you) that constrained the acts of the participants in WW2 to act in certain ways with a high degree of probability ... and which would, inevitably, have had consequences, negative ones mostly, if they had been ignored.


Absolutely correct!!! So I still do not see how you can model WWII without the Sealion scenario being a factor in the minds of the wartime leaders. We know that historically Germany allocated PP to prepare for it and Britain allocated PP to prepare against it. If you make Sealion impossible in game terms then you remove any motivation for the players to duplicate those investments. Some of those real world factors caused Adolf to assemble barges and Winston to build pillboxes. If you provide the knowledge at the start of the game that Sealion is impossible then the leaders will then ignore the historical constraints. Perhaps in opposing a chance for a successful Sealion you have hoisted yourself by your own Petard [trans. for non-English readers: been proved wrong by your own argument] or more likely we just have a Paradox which leaves us D@mned if we Do and D@mned if we Don't.

Hmmm... how about this solution to cut the Gordian Knot:

  • provide a checkbox on the startup screen that makes Sealion impossible (basically provides historic RN/RAF coverage over the Channel).
  • if the box is not checked on startup then the RN/RAF will provide a proportion of their historical coverage over the Channel which then gives the Germans an unknown fighting chance to control the Channel and win Sealion.


Players can agree on this setting before the game and everyone will be happy


_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 28
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/3/2012 10:06:38 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:


What I said, and what the post said, and what all my posts have said ... if you read them ... is that there were certain real world factors (military-logistic, economic, political and what have you) that constrained the acts of the participants in WW2 to act in certain ways with a high degree of probability ... and which would, inevitably, have had consequences, negative ones mostly, if they had been ignored.


Absolutely correct!!! So I still do not see how you can model WWII without the Sealion scenario being a factor in the minds of the wartime leaders. We know that historically Germany allocated PP to prepare for it and Britain allocated PP to prepare against it. If you make Sealion impossible in game terms then you remove any motivation for the players to duplicate those investments.


That's entirely true. However, the amount of resources that were actually allocated *specifically* and ^only* to Sealion were actually, if you check up on it, quite minimal.

The Germans ...

* Allocated ground forces for the invasion, not all of which were ever deployed for it. This actually costs nothing ... except, perhaps, the Strategic Movement cost of moving them all to the Eastern Front (or wherever else you choose to deploy them as Germany!)

* Allocated Luftwaffe forces for the Battle of Britain which were, substantially, the same ones to be used for supporting Sealion, the only real addition being the ATPs for the Paras ... historically, these were the leftovers from Fall Gelb. So no real additional PP there, either.

* Allocated Naval forces to screen the Invasion fleet. None of these were new construction, except in the sense that some may have already been scheduled to come off the slipways if the timeframe for Sealion had been different. So no actual PP spent.

* The Invasion Fleet. This is where the Germans went hog wild. But, in reality, they didn't actually build any Amphibs at the time except, IIRC, almost literally, a few prototypes that weren't ready for any realistic Sealion attempt and couldn't have been built in the required numbers anyway. What did they actually do? The repurposed and converted existing Merchant Ships (loosely classified) and Canal Barges.

In game terms, this probably is best represented as converting Shipping Points and Strategic Movement Points to one shot 'Phibs. Or pretty close to one shot. Even here, the allocation of resources was minimal.

Depending on which of the several iterations of the German plans you think most realistic, well, this would represent enough Strategic Lift for anywhere from a single Infantry Division equivalent (actually, elements of three, landed widely separately) to three Infantry Division equivalents (actually, elements of nine, also widely separated in three separate landing areas). In any realistic plan, in any realistic timeframe, they might have landed a handful of Panzers [ignore the numbers converted, none of them reached any of the units involved], but not enough to be represented by a Mechanised or Panzer Division.

So, the actually PP cost would be whatever you consider the cost of converting Sea Movement and Strategic Movement points into limited use Amphib points. Not very much, I would guess.

The Brits?

Very little of what they did is representable by the in game expenditure of PPs. They built lots of aircraft they were going to build anyway. They built lots of ships they were going to build anyway. They built and trained lots of ground units they were going to build anyway.

They built some fortifications, but I don't think you could realistically represent them as even a 1 point fortification. They tried out some anti-invasion measures that often didn't work, well or at all, like the flaming oil.

So, no real PP expenditure.

Sure, in terms of opportunity cost ... not doing specific things in the order or to the degree they might have if there had been no Sealion planning/fear of Sealion ... yes, both sides made the commitments I have noted (and others as well I haven't) that don't really represent well as PP. I dunno what you do about that. I don't think its realistic to do anything, but YMMV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
Some of those real world factors caused Adolf to assemble barges and Winston to build pillboxes. If you provide the knowledge at the start of the game that Sealion is impossible then the leaders will then ignore the historical constraints. Perhaps in opposing a chance for a successful Sealion you have hoisted yourself by your own Petard [trans. for non-English readers: been proved wrong by your own argument] or more likely we just have a Paradox which leaves us D@mned if we Do and D@mned if we Don't.

Hmmm... how about this solution to cut the Gordian Knot:

  • provide a checkbox on the startup screen that makes Sealion impossible (basically provides historic RN/RAF coverage over the Channel).
  • if the box is not checked on startup then the RN/RAF will provide a proportion of their historical coverage over the Channel which then gives the Germans an unknown fighting chance to control the Channel and win Sealion.


Players can agree on this setting before the game and everyone will be happy



That would work well enough.

Perhaps another option ...

I don't think that Sealion can be represented by actual player actions in the context of actually building units for it and then actually staging it ... there seem to be problems with the Game Engine, at the moment, especially with Naval Combat and Interception that make it unlikely that it can be modelled (I am pretty sure there are deeper problems with the underlying assumptions about the relative strengths of the various at start forces on both sides, but that's neither here nor there at the moment).

And consider what Hitler's initial purpose, and probably actual always purpose, was for Sealion ... it seems it was a huge bluff to get those damned Englanders to surrender or sue for peace. That was what all involved understood. Until he got pissed off when the damned Englanders didn't surrender or sue for peace ... and even then, there are doubts as to how serious he was with pursuing it.

So.

How do you represent it in game terms?

I don't think its a good idea to have some sort of random event triggered puppeting the UK or forcing an armistice. Not even against an AI. I don't think there was a realistic chance of either ... and, as other posters have indicated, this seems to be generally accepted.

What's the most likely outcome? A German failure of some sort. The only details are how bad and how much damage the Germans do to the UK.

So, have an Event that allows the Germans to stage several levels of Sealion, all based on the amount of PPs they're prepared to commit ... and roll the die and see how many PP they lose.

This could be in the form of destruction of units in the production pipeline, reduction of strength of units on the ground, destruction and removal of German naval units ... and then roll to see how much damage the British Army, RN and RAF takes and make a like distribution of the damage ... the proviso being, of course, that the PPs lost by the Germans will far outweigh those lost by the UK even on the best possible roll ... maybe 10 German PP lost for a single UK PP at best ... while the worst result will actually be a 100% German PP loss for no or minimal UK PP loss.

But there would be other possible outcomes.

The Germans will lose prestige, in the form of Diplomatic Points, making it less likely that the Axis Minors will actually become Active. And any chance of, say, Spain or Portugal or Turkey coming in on the German side becomes less than nil. If they gain PP through trade with any of these, that's likely to crash and burn as well.

The UK will gain Diplomatic prestige in inverse proportion.

However, if the Germans manage some sort of least awful defeat, then, possibly, it could retard US entry ... or at least retard US preparation for entry (Joe Kennedy and his ilk really thought the UK was going down in flames, and misinterpreted every positive sign through their own jaundiced eyes ... so it's not impossible) ... or, maybe, give the Germans some additional Diplomatic Points, not a lot, for other things.

That's the best sort of outcome I can see, and a possible way of modelling it without getting too ridiculous ... in fact, it would probably be possible to do what you suggest, somewhat modified, and do something like what I suggest ... perhaps three options ... Historical Sealion, No Sealion, Anything Goes Sealion for example

YMMV of course.

And, of course, for those who want only a gamer style scenario, tick the "Anything Goes Seallion" Box, which will keep them happy, and old fogeys like me will tick the "Historical Sealion" Box, which will keep us happy.

Hopefully, anyway

Phil

< Message edited by aspqrz -- 1/3/2012 10:09:05 AM >


_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 29
RE: Russian surrrender - 1/3/2012 10:34:07 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2234
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I recall something about Franco promised to declare war on the Allies the day the first German soldier landed in Britain.... so there should be 'x' German prestige for attempting the invasion and maybe two times negative 'x' German prestige when the last of the invasion force surrenders. That extra prestige could be enough to pressure Spain into the war (assuming the Axis wants them).



_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> Russian surrrender Page: [1] 2   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

0.246