RE: Russian surrrender

Matrix Games Forums

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play video

Lost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!

A sneak peek from Allied Corps!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Russian surrrender

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Russian surrrender - 1/3/2012 11:37:21 AM

aspqrz

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

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).

Yes, that would be valid ... but, in return, Franco wants, immediately, huge amounts of PP ... now, and every turn thereafter ... you know that Hitler said, of his meeting with Franco at Assaye (?), that he would rather spend an afternoon with his dentist!

This is another what if often trotted out in shw-i ... there are a whole slew of reasons why Franco's Spain is a millstone, rather than a milestone, for the Germans, all to do with logistics ;-)

So, yes, the Germans get Franco ... and they're welcome!

(And, no, it shouldn't make taking Gibraltar all that easy. For a whole slew of reasons, all to do with logistics) ... and the congested approach over open terrain which was, IIRC, not even a klick wide. I don't know how this would be represented in the game ... doesn't the map show Gib as having a two hexside frontage with Spain? It shouldn't! And no armour bonus for attackers, either!

Phil

Phil

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 31

RE: Russian surrrender - 1/3/2012 3:32:12 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 640
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

This is in tresponse to Post 26 in this thread.

Just as a comaprision, in the old SPI War in Europe game, I actually tried Sea Lion one time

. I had produced enough Amphs (which took 10 MONTHS to build and could ONLY spend 10% of my TOTAL production on Naval units. This was to represent the resource restrictions that Phil pointed out in his post) to lift 1 PZ div and 2 Inf divs. I also produced enough Surf points (i.e. ships) to screen the invasion fleet for the initial landing. I started this build up at the very start of the game (9/39) as to get enough Amphs in time to do Sea Lion in 1940, they had to start building right away. I also had to completely ignore Norway as I did not want to waste my limited naval forces there.

I was able to land the three divisons, actually took Southampton too

. Unfortunately could not keep them supplied or reinforce them due to the massive presence of RN forces in the sea area, so they all died. Needless to say, we did NOT finish that game

.

In order for Sea Lion to even have a remote vialibility, the game would have to start MUCH earlier in time aka HoI 3 or MH2. Then a strategic decision must be made that war and defeat of England is the main goal of the war, not Russia. Starting in 1939 and THEN deciding 'hey let's invade England now' should never be possible given the decisions made by Germany's leadership in the years leading up to the war. So if anyone REALLY want's a viable Sea Lion AND have historical constarints in a game then ToF is not going to be that game in it's current state. Fun? Absoulely. Realistic? Fanasty Land unfortunately

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 1/3/2012 3:33:31 PM >

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 32

RE: Russian surrrender - 1/3/2012 9:16:48 PM

aspqrz

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

Indeed. And, of course, if you think back, WiE had an absolute maximum number of Panzer and PanzerGrenadier Divisions (and Air Points, IIRC) that Germany could produce ... the number available in the counter mix ... which was also meant to represent real world constraints on German production (of course, Countermix limits applied to all countries ... but tended to be more generous for the Western Allies, forex).

Phil

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 33

RE: Russian surrrender - 1/3/2012 10:19:25 PM

doomtrader

Posts: 5237
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline

Just on the side question about the limit of Panzer Divisions. Does it counts just the number of divisions, or maybe the total number of tanks/battalions within?
10 divisions with 10% strength is much less power than 10 fully reinforced divisions.

It is not a problem to put such limit in straight numbers, but this should be done wisely. There should be different limit if Germany is at the gates of Moscow and completely different when the Soviets are close to Warsaw on their march to Berlin. And here is the point where everything becomes complicated.

_____________________________

All the latest news about Wastelands Games.

Facebook

(in reply to aspqrz)

Post #: 34

RE: Russian surrrender - 1/3/2012 11:01:46 PM

RandomAttack

Posts: 129
Joined: 7/23/2009
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

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

For what it's worth, I wasn't referring to you or anyone with the 2 yr old comment. My point was (and is) that people, even national leaders, make irrational decisions (like a 2 year old attacking an adult out of anger-- he isn't going to win, but he just doesn't care.

). Or bad decisions based on incorrect assumptions, or desperation, or megalomania. I have never argued that Sealion was realistic/feasible, or even addressed it. That doesn't mean he couldn't have decided to try it-- and probably fail gloriously! But you never know.

Our fundamental difference is this: You are still primarily concerned with social/economic/political factors driving the action to a high probability. MY point is that real people don't always (or even often) feel constrained by them.

Plus, I have no doubt there were plenty of "industrialists" on all sides that just outright LIED-- to this day there is a very powerful human tendency to tell the boss what he wants to hear. Even more so when a negative report can result in your being shot. Like Goering promising to supply the army at Stalingrad by air (yeah right). We might know TODAY that it was virtually impossible-- but Hitler chose to believe it, and we don't know whether he "really" believed it or not at that instant in time. My bottom line is that war is fought by people, and numbers can only ever tell part of the story. Leaders are more than capable of acting like geniuses one moment and morons the next. "If it's stupid but it works, it ain't stupid". It's a pretty fine line sometimes.

This discussion really doesn't have much impact on actual gameplay from my point of view, as it's easy to mod certain aspects in or out. We obviously aren't going to convert each other, so I'll cease & desist so as not to further derail the thread.

< Message edited by RandomAttack -- 1/3/2012 11:13:15 PM >

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 35

RE: Russian surrrender - 1/3/2012 11:03:49 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 640
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

For those that may be interested

, here is the breakdown of the units, their production cycle (in Months), and the maximun that could be built (i.e on the map and in the production queue) in WiE.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 1/3/2012 11:05:47 PM >

(in reply to doomtrader)

Post #: 36

RE: Russian surrrender - 1/4/2012 1:43:35 AM

aspqrz

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Just on the side question about the limit of Panzer Divisions. Does it counts just the number of divisions, or maybe the total number of tanks/battalions within?
10 divisions with 10% strength is much less power than 10 fully reinforced divisions.

It is not a problem to put such limit in straight numbers, but this should be done wisely. There should be different limit if Germany is at the gates of Moscow and completely different when the Soviets are close to Warsaw on their march to Berlin. And here is the point where everything becomes complicated.

If you look at the changing TO&Es of German Panzer and PanzerGrenadier Divisions from 1939 to 1945, the number of tanks per Division always went *down* but, IIRC, the number of Tank Battalions/Regiments remained the same ... they found that the optimum number of tanks to get an "armour bonus" was considerably lower than they thought in 1934-38.

The real limitation on the number of Panze/PanzerGrenadier divisions for the Germans should, in any case, be trucks, not tanks. And that's a problem the Germans never were able to deal with or resolve ... not even by pressing into service Czech, Polish, Dutch, Belgian, French and etc. trucks captured in their various holiday excursions across Europe ... and the fact that they had to rely on such expedients right to the end is indicative.

Phil

Phil

(in reply to doomtrader)

Post #: 37

RE: Russian surrrender - 1/4/2012 1:51:51 AM

aspqrz

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

Indeed. Speer for example. Lied to Hitler. Lied to the Allies.

Thing is, as I was pointing out, the facts I was referring to have only just started to come into the general literature in the last 20 odd years amongst other things for exactly that type of reason ... Barber and Harrison were working without real access to Soviet post 1989 sources such as have been available to people like Glantz (who, of course, has less than no interest in economuc factors

) yet we now understand their assessments were largely correct.

Tooze is the first big splash that could be regarded as "general" without pushing that definition too far out of shape ... and that's barely, of course!

Thing is, yes, people didn't understand the lies told to them during the war until recently ... and almost all general studies of the war still rely on those lies.

Even Glantz hasn't gone fully beyond them with the access he has to Soviet era resources, since he really, as I noted, has no interest in the economics.

So, based on what's been coming out in the last 20 years or so in the specialist, and, now, in something approaching the generalist literature, well, we have a much better handle on things ... to an extent that makes your arguments less arguable than they would have been based on what we thought we knew 20 years ago.

Which is my point, perhaps expressed badly.

And, like I said, I don't see any conflict ... it should be possible to have a Gamers scenario with play balance a factor, and a Historical Realism scenario with it much less so, if at all.

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 #: 38

RE: Russian surrrender - 1/4/2012 11:38:09 PM

rogo727

Posts: 919
Joined: 7/12/2011
From: Iowa
Status: offline

I agree, and I must admit I am Tooze fan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Indeed. Speer for example. Lied to Hitler. Lied to the Allies.

Thing is, as I was pointing out, the facts I was referring to have only just started to come into the general literature in the last 20 odd years amongst other things for exactly that type of reason ... Barber and Harrison were working without real access to Soviet post 1989 sources such as have been available to people like Glantz (who, of course, has less than no interest in economuc factors ) yet we now understand their assessments were largely correct.

Tooze is the first big splash that could be regarded as "general" without pushing that definition too far out of shape ... and that's barely, of course!

Thing is, yes, people didn't understand the lies told to them during the war until recently ... and almost all general studies of the war still rely on those lies.

Even Glantz hasn't gone fully beyond them with the access he has to Soviet era resources, since he really, as I noted, has no interest in the economics.

So, based on what's been coming out in the last 20 years or so in the specialist, and, now, in something approaching the generalist literature, well, we have a much better handle on things ... to an extent that makes your arguments less arguable than they would have been based on what we thought we knew 20 years ago.

Which is my point, perhaps expressed badly.

And, like I said, I don't see any conflict ... it should be possible to have a Gamers scenario with play balance a factor, and a Historical Realism scenario with it much less so, if at all.

Phil

(in reply to aspqrz)

Post #: 39

RE: Russian surrrender - 1/9/2012 9:12:11 AM

Greyshaft

Posts: 1993
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
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.

I need a life outside of computer games ... I literally woke up this morning with this thought in my head...

The real cost to Germany of BoB wasn't the attrition of the Luftwaffe (a.k.a. cost in PP) - it was the opportunity cost incurred by telling the Luftwaffe and Heer to stay in France and prepare for Seelowe rather than sending them where they could do more effective work. Hitler tabled "Directive No. 16; On the Preparation of a Landing Operation against England" on 16th July 1940 and on 13th October he postponed the invasion "until the spring of 1941".

That's three months where the Axis beat their heads against a brick wall. Consider what they might have done if they had explored other opportunities... Malta? Gibraltar? Yalta? Alexandria? A 1940 conquest of Yugoslavia which lets Barbarossa start on schedule in mid-May 1941? So what could Germany have achieved if they had decided that BoB would be a dud and they should hunt some other game?

(I notice that Phil touched on this concept in his response but we didn't explore it in detail. )

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to aspqrz)

Post #: 40

RE: Russian surrrender - 1/9/2012 1:03:58 PM

aspqrz

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

Malta, yes. I think this was probably the most realistic option. I think the Axis actually could have taken it.

However, to do it, well, there are consequences.

The early victories against Yugoslavia, Greece and in Crete, and, indeed, in North Africa, were done with the assistance of two entire Luftflottes ... one of which was earmarked for Barbarossa.

We've discussed this on shw-i and the problem is that, to ...

a) make invading Malta doable

and

b) make taking Malta worthwhile

... you have to keep it in theater.

I forget the percentage, exactly, but, IIRC, that was about 1/4 of the planes eventually committed to Barbarossa.

Now, with Uber-Panzers, this may not be a problem

but in the real world it would have been.

Gibraltar, well, I've discussed the real world constraints elsewhere.

Alexandria ... well, maybe, if you keep the second Luftflotte in the Med AND strip one of the three German Armies that invade Russia of all the truck units that kept the Panzers supplied as they forged ahead of the railheads (most people don't know that the DAK has as many trucks committed to its Lines of Communications as an entire Army in the invasion of Russia ... and that it wasn't enough to get them Alexandria) ...

Can Barbarossa go ahead successfully with 1/4 of its air strength and 1/3 of its panzer mobility stripped away ... sure, but only with the 50 strength Uber Panzers ... maybe.

And what do you actually get if you take Alex?

No Oil. Nothing much but Arabs and sand.

By the time you get to where the oil is, as I've also pointed out, it's all in ruins and, indeed, rebuilding the wells and refineries and then shipping the oil back to anywhere its worth spit won't be happening in less than 5-10 years, if ever.

One thing that may have happened is that, with more forces arriving on the Eastern Front sooner than historically, there is no pro-Allied Yugoslav coup? Not that that does much, as it didn't actually delay Barbarossa (that was entirely due to the weather) ... not for the Germans. It may make the Italians less likely to take on the Greeks. Which, paradoxically, probably means the Italians lose all of North Africa before the Germans can get the DAK over there.

There's not really a lot they can do that's going to have a better return on investment than Sealion, actually.

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 #: 41

RE: Russian surrrender - 1/9/2012 9:47:26 PM

Greyshaft

Posts: 1993
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Alexandria ... well, maybe, if you keep the second Luftflotte in the Med AND strip one of the three German Armies that invade Russia of all the truck units that kept the Panzers supplied as they forged ahead of the railheads (most people don't know that the DAK has as many trucks committed to its Lines of Communications as an entire Army in the invasion of Russia ... and that it wasn't enough to get them Alexandria) ...

Can Barbarossa go ahead successfully with 1/4 of its air strength and 1/3 of its panzer mobility stripped away ... sure, but only with the 50 strength Uber Panzers ... maybe.

And what do you actually get if you take Alex?

Suppose the Axis concentrate on taking Malta and Alexandria in mid 1940 (and perhaps push on to occupy Palestine as a buffer to protect Egypt). With the majority of the Sealion forces reallocated to Africa I'd guess they can conquer Egypt by Christmas 1940. Your point about supply constraints in Africa is valid but it wasn't easy for the British either. Rommel had a good time invading Egypt on a shoestring - imagine what he could have done with the whole shoe!

Taking Malta/Alexandria has the following effects:

* closes the Suez Canal and makes the Eastern Med into an Axis lake. Allied subs need to operate from Gibraltar and therefore must pass Sicily to interdict Axis transport to/from Africa. After the fall of Alex/Cairo the Axis forces in Africa can be reduced to garrison status (DAK + air force redeploys to prepare for Barbarossa).

* makes Allied air deployments in the Iraq region irrelevant. There's no Allied advantage in an air war that's not followed by a land offensive to retake Egypt and if Britain has been pummeled in Egypt then they don't have the local ground strength to mount that offensive. Iraq becomes a backwater. Why does the Axis need airpower in Africa now? Maybe the Italians can handle the air defence by themselves.

* The Italian Navy can now raid into the Red Sea. Oil prices go up in London.

* The political/prestige cost to Britain of the fall of Egypt would be immense. India is under threat (not a realistic threat but then again, neither was Sealion) but the Indian National Congress starts getting restless and the British must find more troops to reinforce the Indian garrison. FDR starts listening to Kennedy's ideas that "Britain is finished".

Ok ... that's enough Red Flags for now. Release the Bulls!

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to aspqrz)

Post #: 42