Matrix Games Forums

Community impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/13/2012 11:21:39 PM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi IronDuke,

A large part of your concern stems from the reality of World War II. We can't change that and we're not setting out to make a fictional game.


No issue here, as I wouldn't buy it if it was fictional. I have spent time in the WitE forum arguing against German research and production because I don't think the game (any game) could simulate it acurately.

quote:

When I talk about "track record" I'm not trying to use it to wave away your concerns, I'm literally telling you that it might be worth taking a look at previous games from the same team at this scale in terms of seeing how it works in practice. I don't see this as condescending or ignoring you. It's an extremely relevant and valid point. If there had been no previous game made at this scale, we'd all be discussing theory with each other, but because a finished game exists you can look at it and see many of the questions of gameplay at this scale and how they were handled in practice. You may decide after that that it's not your cup of tea and that the gameplay at this scale does not work for you, but bringing up the existence of that previous game and that track record is not a way to silence you, it's IMHO a very useful data point.

Keep in mind the internet is a very good way to miscommunicate. I can tell you that neither I or Joel intended to dismiss, insult or condescend to you. There is no way, however, to communicate tone or intent. Words once written can be read entirely differently depending on the views of the reader. Just keep it in mind please.

I don't know that there's much more to say though. I understand your concerns, Joel does as well. We believe that the game in its final form is better than you are expecting it to be and as you said, I hope we're right.


Fair enough, let's stand down. I've spent thousands of hours with 2by3 games, so it felt uncomfortable (and a little heretical) arguing with Joel anyway. In addition, I've known you several years and never known you be anything other than perfectly reasonable, so I didn't have the appetite for that fight, either.

I've made my point, you've made yours, lets agree to see what happens.

May I finish by wishing everyone connected with this development all the very best. I sincerely hope you pull it off because being proved right comes a very distant second to being proved completely wrong and having a great game to play...

If I can make one last, parting plea: Do not blow 2by3's hard earned reputation for historical accuracy by making Sea Lion in any way, shape or form possible under any variation of this game....

Respect and regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 91
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/13/2012 11:30:29 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21185
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


If I can make one last, parting plea: Do not blow 2by3's hard earned reputation for historical accuracy by making Sea Lion in any way, shape or form possible under any variation of this game....




Thanks for your feedback, and the only answer I can give re Sea Lion at this time is that if we do our job right it should only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time (except of course in hypothetical scenarios with different forces). In any case, that conversation is for another game, so I'm not going to say any more about that for quite awhile.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 92
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/13/2012 11:51:28 PM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


If I can make one last, parting plea: Do not blow 2by3's hard earned reputation for historical accuracy by making Sea Lion in any way, shape or form possible under any variation of this game....




Thanks for your feedback, and the only answer I can give re Sea Lion at this time is that if we do our job right it should only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time (except of course in hypothetical scenarios with different forces). In any case, that conversation is for another game, so I'm not going to say any more about that for quite awhile.


Given that the plan was to send long lines of river barges across the channel at a racy 4 miles an hour, (protected only by two Minesweepers and a converted fishing boat hurriedly kitted out with a sauage making machine for self defence) sailing into the face of hundreds of destroyers, MTBs, Cruisers, more destroyers and even battleships, with the furthest dispositioned of the starting forces starting the journey 24 hours before the landing, leaving port in full view of French civilians and Allied aerial recce, spending a day in full view of anything with wings or binoculars over or around the channel, meaning that tactical surprise achieved would have been marginally less than Picket managed, before landing a force that was planned to include several thousand horses onto a British beach (quite possibly including amongst its defenders several thousand blood thirsty Canadians) then I shall take the phrase "only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time" to mean it isn't going to happen......

IronDuke is officially becalmed on this matter...

My apologies if I appeared a little pushy during our exchanges, I am just serious about playing games...

All the best,
John.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 93
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/14/2012 4:42:37 PM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 869
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Going at a tangent here.

The map seems to cover the Balkans. Will there be allied options to land in the Balkans as well? In a way acting out Churchill's dream?


No... not at this time... Balkans will remain dormant (i.e. ala WitE)...

BTW, I asked this very same questions may months ago!




Leo "Apollo11"





and there end my prayers...

I have to admit at how the Italian collapse will be handled - unless the game starts just after the Italian collapse. I have to say that I noted an Italian para unit brigade in one of the screenies. Possibly the X Mas or part of the forces of the RSI?

< Message edited by Offworlder -- 3/14/2012 4:45:25 PM >

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 94
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/14/2012 9:33:24 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1686
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger
What made Hitler not complete Plan Z for the Kriegsmarine?

The 'Z' Plan was intended to be completed by 1945/46, I think Hitler had earlier said that he did not expect war before 1950. Either way, the plan was overtaken by events, as the war started in 1939 and resources were needed to meet immediate war requirements.

The 'Z' plan had anticipated more years of peace, the war came too soon, but whose fault was that.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Footslogger)
Post #: 95
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/14/2012 9:45:08 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1686
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Therefore, bluff/counter bluff would seem hard to achieve. Unless the Allied player has to set his landing objectives 6 months in advance, all he has to do is use his air superiority to recon AXIS units and then land where they aren't.


Surely that's how it will have to be if the game is to be anywhere near realistic, you can't just pop a major landing down without month's of preparation. Even the vintage 'Western Front', precursor to 'War in Russia', had significant penalties for changing the site of a planned landing.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 96
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/14/2012 9:57:09 PM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Therefore, bluff/counter bluff would seem hard to achieve. Unless the Allied player has to set his landing objectives 6 months in advance, all he has to do is use his air superiority to recon AXIS units and then land where they aren't.


Surely that's how it will have to be if the game is to be anywhere near realistic, you can't just pop a major landing down without month's of preparation. Even the vintage 'Western Front', precursor to 'War in Russia', had significant penalties for changing the site of a planned landing.


Agreed, going back to Cossac, their original plan dates to August 1943. Although it was significantly revised by Montgomery in Spring 1944, this original plan envisaged a Normandy landing. There should be a minimum 12 turn period between naming your landing zone and using it.

Regards,
ID

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 97
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/14/2012 10:23:55 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1686
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
You're a Historian as well as a Wargame designer. In 43-45, the equation is simple. Only by bottling the Allies up can the Germans create any kind of operational campaign. When the Germans aren't bottling the Allies up, they will be retreating, plain and simple. They don't have the numbers to create a front line the length of central France so, to be fair, it'd be surprising if large parts of the map of France were actually used for anything other than retreating through.


You are probably right that, after a landing has taken place, there is not much operational flexibility left to either side, but there may be a lot to play for, before the landings are actually launched.

Sicily, or Sardinia, Normandy, or the Pas de Calais, even with the limited map options available, the Axis cannot be strong everywhere, neither should the Allies be able to throw landings in at will.

The Allies should have to commit to a plan and then sweat on how the Axis is deploying, with at least some FOW, it could get quite interesting. Unlike WiTE rail moving around your front, both sides will have limited flexibility and long planning cycles. The Allies because of extensive planning and naval logistics, the Axis because of the difficulty of quickly moving units. There will be a lot of long term planning to be done by both sides.

All that you say is true if you take things from the commencement of a major landing, but there is a lot of mileage in the run-up to those situations, as there was historically.

Invasion 1942, or 1943, or 1944, Roundup, Bolero, or Overlord. Normandy was not a done deal, there was plenty for the Allies to worry about, if the game can reproduce the same imperatives.

Churchill said that the 'Battle of the Atlantic' was the thing that gave him the most concern during the war, so I would not write off the naval aspects of the game, until we see what it is.

Production ?, a game in itself, .........maybe.


'We also serve who must watch and wait'


_____________________________

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

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 98
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/14/2012 10:38:51 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1686
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
The other aspect of the scale of the game is that Market-Garden was planned and launched, effectively within a game turn, designate a landing site and land on the following turn, with a multi-divisional force.

It's all going to be over very quickly, one way or the other. From the slow deliberate planning of an amphibious landing, to the possible 'sudden death' decision of an airborne assault. Same with Crete, turn the wheel and hope your numbers come up.

An airborne unit dropping on an enemy ground unit, support from friendly ground units, air support, air supply, AAA effects,...ummm !

You could be tearing your hair out over this one.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 3/14/2012 10:44:03 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 99
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/15/2012 6:08:43 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
Surely that's how it will have to be if the game is to be anywhere near realistic, you can't just pop a major landing down without month's of preparation. Even the vintage 'Western Front', precursor to 'War in Russia', had significant penalties for changing the site of a planned landing.

To draw once more from Western Front, that game would let the Allies have their pick of landing sites all across the beaches of Southern, Western, Northwestern and Northern France and parts of BeNeLux, but changing the invasion target was only "free" during the very first turn of the full campaign, ostensibly to represent how the Allies would have planning for that one site all along.

Changing the landing targets after the first turn would then be a very expensive prospect in terms of Ops/Planning Points.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 100
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/15/2012 8:58:09 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1686
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Therefore, bluff/counter bluff would seem hard to achieve. Unless the Allied player has to set his landing objectives 6 months in advance, all he has to do is use his air superiority to recon AXIS units and then land where they aren't.


Surely that's how it will have to be if the game is to be anywhere near realistic, you can't just pop a major landing down without month's of preparation. Even the vintage 'Western Front', precursor to 'War in Russia', had significant penalties for changing the site of a planned landing.


Agreed, going back to Cossac, their original plan dates to August 1943. Although it was significantly revised by Montgomery in Spring 1944, this original plan envisaged a Normandy landing. There should be a minimum 12 turn period between naming your landing zone and using it.

Regards,
ID


I understand your concerns over the scale of the game, perhaps the most important decisions Eisenhower made were, not to go on 5th June and then to go on 6th June, all outside the scale of the game. The weather effects on Market-Garden were difficult to plan for, apart from the fact that fog is likely in the UK in autumn, critical events changing by the day, even by the hour.

One of the reasons why the Allies needed such an overwhelming force ratio was the potential uncertainty of the enterprise. The weather uncertainties of actually launching Overload were encompassed within one turn, but then there was the July storm and the destruction of one Mulberry harbour.

The eventual success of Overlord was probably assured, but assaults launched earlier in the war could be more problematic. In WiTE you know the winter is coming in XX turns, give or take a week, or two. In amphibious, or airborne operations, you cannot know that a destructive storm may happen in a few turns, after you have already committed.

Perhaps for actual assault turns, game turns in phases, with player input to combat cycles, option to abandon the attack, add support, etc.

This game will have a completely feel from 'WiTE', the more you think about it, the more daunting it becomes.





_____________________________

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

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 101
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/15/2012 10:32:11 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1686
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
Taking IDs points about the game scale and turn length, particularly with respect to the immediacy of amphibious and airborne landings, I don't know what the DEVS are planning, but how about ..........

Designate assault hexes, designate assault units for each hex (including supporting units), designate assault turns, there will be time restrictions on how many turns and what you have to spend, before the designated landing point and units can be used, but you can't just throw any unit, onto any beach, any time.

When the designated assault turn arrives the attacking player decides to either, cancel/delay the assault (just becomes a normal turn), or launch the assault and the turn moves into phases. The detail is vast, but there would be opportunities to continue through the phases and add pre-designated supporting forces, for the enemy to react and move his supporting forces (when Hitler wakes up), for weather effects to come into play, maybe cut your losses and evacuate, or at least stop adding forces (you would not want a whole one week turn to play through an obvious disaster).

This will extend the PBEM turn, but this will be a critical part of the game and worth playing through.

Whatever the delay period is, if you change the designated items, you would have to delay the assault. So if 1st Inf is designated for hex XX/XX, on turn XX, then you could substitute any of these, but with a preparation delay, which would vary. (it would be easier to change the date than to change the assault target). Amphibious delays would be longer than airborne delays.

Units could have a combat experience level and an assault experience level, assault experience can be gained in actual assaults, or in training and reduces without use, or continued training. High experience combat units would automatically have a low level of assault experience to start from. The player will have to balance assault experience against the expected defence resisting the assault and combat experience, which will come into play in later turn phases (if the assault succeeds), to secure a bridgehead (you my succeed in the beach assault/airborne landing, but fail to secure a bridgehead). Obviously you will want high assault experience with high combat experience, but early in the game these may be hard to come by. There will be difficult choices to be made.

Once a bridgehead has been formed it may turn into a head-to-head slug-fest, but isn't that what history gave use. It's the build-up to landings and the actual assaults that contains most of the strategy.

In game balance, the Axis will have a chance to launch assaults in the early war titles and can respond to the later assaults, rather than just be a punch-bag. There will be difficult, but interesting, defence decisions to be made.

As for Sea-Lion, well surely we can toss a scrap to the Axis side, I would like to give it a try.

We don't know what is coming, but all of this is to show that a lot could be done with the outline that we have been given.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 3/15/2012 10:42:22 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 102
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/15/2012 8:35:54 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 652
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
The 43-45 western campaigns are difficult to emulate in a singular game, due to a large variance in terrain and operations. How do you replicate fighting in the Bocage? The flooded polders? Market Garden? Slugfest in Italy? Variability of amphibious operations? Shifting army level transport (APC, LVT, and truck) resources (for the Allies)?

From a map and force scale perspective, you have massive force concentrations in Normandy, a narrow front in Italy, and 2/3rds of France that never/rarely gets used. Getting the right scale is difficult.

The only real way to do it would be a gi-normous monster game, but then you get into playability issues. So you go a scale larger but then Normandy/Italy are too small on the map to do those campaigns justice. Round and round you go...

I tried working it out back in my TOAW days, but couldn't. Others tried, and I don't think really sorted it out either. I don't envy the devs on this one at all...

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 103
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/21/2012 10:36:00 AM   
tiddles

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 3/2/2012
Status: offline
I'd just like to say this looks like a great game. Having ploughed through endless posts on the scale of the game - it's pretty obvious it won't change. I actually don't care too much about fighting normandy at a closel level - I have a couple of SSG games that do that. (or the bulge for that matter). What I am really looking forward to is:
- For allies
- being able to land anywhere - can I go thru spain?
- having logistics limitations - if I do land somewhere obscure and have to rely on only a single line
- being able to produce the types of units I want

- For germans
- successfully defeating an invasion on the beaches - Picking the spot correctly and having the right reserves to react more than 'fighting' the 'normandy' battle per se
- some ability to create deception measure to support the above point
- having choice in the types of units created
- possibly railing out a little of my industrial capacity (as did happen)

That would be a pretty good game.
I know there are a subset of very specialised folks who will play the game 30 times, optimise tactics and work out the one true path within the system. At that point I am sure they will claim the game is unbalanced, but that's often because if you play a game 30 times and have all that hindsight there are few surprises left, more than the model is inherently wrong.

The early war game will be fun for the future - It's probably true that Sea Lion is a tough ask if you have the Sep 39 order of battle, but if the game is allowed to start earlier, or run longer then it should be possible. The main limitation would again seem to be hindsight - Manstein's plan worked once in France becuase of the element of surprise, not sure how it would work against a prepared enemy? Similarly in a whole of Europe game, you'd be foolhardy to invade russia with the english still fighting - but I guess these are questions for 2016 or whenever.

In the meantime can I pre-order yet - it sounds great!

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 104
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/21/2012 10:48:03 AM   
tiddles

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 3/2/2012
Status: offline
Oh - One thing that would really help would be a better user interface. I bought WITE about 3 months back almost solely because a review said that it was much easier to find info and do things than in WITP. And WITE is better, but there are still a huge number of onerous clicks (e.g. Click on the stack, then move mouse over to far right of screen, click on unit to bring the unit info up in middle of screen, move mouse back across to middle of screen to click to take an action with that unit) - There seriously must be better ways to do this stuff. I know the grogs will focus on scale of hexes etc. (as they should!) but user interface improvements would be truly

(in reply to tiddles)
Post #: 105
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/28/2012 4:30:21 AM   
Baris

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline
From reading most of the posts, I'm very much convinced how valuable current WIE is regarding the map size and huge area covered for land warfare. I will be interested and buying all the WIW games with the hope at least advance logistics(Rail capacity) to be implemented to current WIE. And I don't see connection between war in the west and war in the east fronts so didn't understand the concept behind making a game covering whole europe. I hope future WIE 2 game map won't shrink to be in scale with war in west. But as WIE is a great game no doubt younger ones will be even better .

< Message edited by Baris -- 3/28/2012 4:32:01 AM >

(in reply to tiddles)
Post #: 106
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/28/2012 4:47:06 AM   
tigercub


Posts: 1547
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: chiang mai ,thailand
Status: offline
Myself ...i think war in the west is a waste of time....but the 40 ver is a better idea...stop farting about just give us the whole Karbarb!

Tigercub

< Message edited by tigercub -- 3/28/2012 7:03:34 AM >


_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 107
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/30/2012 10:35:01 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1222
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
Joel, I have a question regarding the weather model in WitW: will it be refined in some way?

The reason I ask is the impact of the weather effects (outside the 1st blizzard rules), in particular the role of "mud". As is beyond any question, a single turn of mud in a 1941 GC and badly derail the Axis advance, as much as much in any game will put offensive actions to an abrupt halt. Also supply is very badly hampered.

To me, this impact seems very severe. The reason I believe is the "crudeness" of the model. Since "rain" (precipitation) is not depicted in game, there is no warning of upcoming ground condition changes, nor is there even a very crude, perhaps often inaccurate weather forecast. I imagine that in summer, it will take several weeks of typical summer rains to create this type of "heavy mud" that will cut supply so severely and reduce offensive CV strongly (why not defensive CV, btw? defense is not that static either?).

This type of "heavy mud" we see in game seems appropriate after weeks of rain, in later October, or in spring. But I think there ought to be some more transitional weather forms such as rain and "light mud", continuing rainfall and "medium mud" up to heavy continuing rainfall and "heavy mud". Each with correspondingly increasing penalties up to the "heavy mud" we have. Maybe in summer the transition could be slow, and in autumn and spring there might even be a chance to jump from "light mud" to "heavy mud" in one week.

This would make the effect of mud more plausible in game, because it would be so abrupt/ immediately severe and a bit more manageable.

I have been reading much recently from the Wehrmachts reports of the Barbarossa opening, as well as comparing to secondary literature, and in both cases there is mention of poor weather, rain and increasingly muddy off-road and road conditions starting mid-July. Apparently it had started to rain around July 8 in AGS AO, a little later in the AGC area. By July 14 ground conditions had deteriorated so much that in the official reports of OKW, Chef Lage (chief of "situation/intel") kept continuously remarking that mud inhibited the progress for AGS badly. By July 24 even the road conditions were getting so bad, that supply was having trouble getting through and that Panzergruppe 1 progress was hampered (besides by the previously very heavy resistance and counterattacks of 26th Soviet Army, which by that time was waning). Around this date, also Panzergruppe 2 reported trouble due to ground conditions and summer rain.
Certainly these weather conditions slowed German progress and reduced combat power for AGS, which makes this seem important.

I would interpret this in the way that with "historical weather", there also should be some mud for AGS and AGC in July. However, the mud effects presently would not seem to to the above justice, they would be severe. Progress was limited, and supply as well, but certainly not as bad as in game since the historic advance and fighting slowed, but did not subside for 3 weeks at a time. Something like "light mud", with 10-20% supply reduction, 10% higher MP costs, and maybe 20% reduction in attacker and 10% in defender CV would seem more appropriate.

(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 108
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/30/2012 6:01:08 PM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


If I can make one last, parting plea: Do not blow 2by3's hard earned reputation for historical accuracy by making Sea Lion in any way, shape or form possible under any variation of this game....




Thanks for your feedback, and the only answer I can give re Sea Lion at this time is that if we do our job right it should only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time (except of course in hypothetical scenarios with different forces). In any case, that conversation is for another game, so I'm not going to say any more about that for quite awhile.


Given that the plan was to send long lines of river barges across the channel at a racy 4 miles an hour, (protected only by two Minesweepers and a converted fishing boat hurriedly kitted out with a sauage making machine for self defence) sailing into the face of hundreds of destroyers, MTBs, Cruisers, more destroyers and even battleships, with the furthest dispositioned of the starting forces starting the journey 24 hours before the landing, leaving port in full view of French civilians and Allied aerial recce, spending a day in full view of anything with wings or binoculars over or around the channel, meaning that tactical surprise achieved would have been marginally less than Picket managed, before landing a force that was planned to include several thousand horses onto a British beach (quite possibly including amongst its defenders several thousand blood thirsty Canadians) then I shall take the phrase "only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time" to mean it isn't going to happen......

IronDuke is officially becalmed on this matter...

My apologies if I appeared a little pushy during our exchanges, I am just serious about playing games...

All the best,
John.


You Brits are overly sensitive on this subject.
Besides, hundreds of Destroyers? Not quite. BB's? Not quite as it was already decided they would not enter the Channel unless Germans brought their capital ships too, which they couldn't, as they didn't have them at the time.

Read the book Invasion of England 1940: The Planning of Operation Sealion by Peter Schenk for a very torough inestigation and listing of the ACTUAL preperations of the Germans, and be amazed.

Also note, during the numerous landings in Italy, on several occasions Destroyers lost the fight against 88mm's.
There were going to be plenty on barges and rafts so concluding that Sealion was not possible is rather bias
Typically British

< Message edited by glvaca -- 3/31/2012 9:43:45 AM >

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 109
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/30/2012 8:56:26 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3033
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: online
Hi Joel,

I have some of teh same concerns as Janh. Apart from Italy where u have muddy conditions closing down operations as u had during rasputsia in russia, but generally u dont get any where near conditions as that in europe N of Italy/alpes. So a 1/8 attack CV seems out of order.
I'd even say for my taste it alrdy strech a bit to far into Polen especially in light of the new VP scn.

Another thing to consider alrdy now rather than run into issues later on seems to be. If an approx of current the model is keept. Assuming allies start with the initiative in WiTW aka first player in turns. Then there is no problem in that u dont invade until in the next player turn, as u alrdy know the weather and can act accordingly.
But what about a "War in Europe". One would assume axis starts with initiative and less some provisions for it to switch, u wouldnt know the weather in the following player turn on planing of an invasion. So if u plan a invasion and then run into a 1/8 CV in next turn ur prolly politely speaking not well off. That seems very harsh considering how close D-Day came to be postponed cuz of the weather. Historicly things speaking too u wouldnt run not 1/8 attack CV("bad weather") situasion as it would "just" have been postponed. Maybe if not alrdy some provisions for that should be thot into WiTW in anticipation of WIE.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 3/30/2012 10:27:47 PM >

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 110
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/30/2012 10:31:10 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21185
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
There will be some changes to weather, but they will be similar to what we have using weather zones. We already have modified mud rules for some areas, but I can't say exactly where the rules will end up. Those looking for a complex weather model or hex by hex weather will be disappointed, but those looking for some refinement of the current system should be happy.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 111
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/31/2012 4:56:25 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline
Hope the weather zones are smaller than they are in WitE.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 112
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/31/2012 8:38:28 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 17835
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


If I can make one last, parting plea: Do not blow 2by3's hard earned reputation for historical accuracy by making Sea Lion in any way, shape or form possible under any variation of this game....




Thanks for your feedback, and the only answer I can give re Sea Lion at this time is that if we do our job right it should only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time (except of course in hypothetical scenarios with different forces). In any case, that conversation is for another game, so I'm not going to say any more about that for quite awhile.


Given that the plan was to send long lines of river barges across the channel at a racy 4 miles an hour, (protected only by two Minesweepers and a converted fishing boat hurriedly kitted out with a sauage making machine for self defence) sailing into the face of hundreds of destroyers, MTBs, Cruisers, more destroyers and even battleships, with the furthest dispositioned of the starting forces starting the journey 24 hours before the landing, leaving port in full view of French civilians and Allied aerial recce, spending a day in full view of anything with wings or binoculars over or around the channel, meaning that tactical surprise achieved would have been marginally less than Picket managed, before landing a force that was planned to include several thousand horses onto a British beach (quite possibly including amongst its defenders several thousand blood thirsty Canadians) then I shall take the phrase "only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time" to mean it isn't going to happen......

IronDuke is officially becalmed on this matter...

My apologies if I appeared a little pushy during our exchanges, I am just serious about playing games...

All the best,
John.


You Brits are overly sensitive on this subject.
Besides, hundreds of Destroyers? Not quite. BB's? Not quite as it was already decided they would not enter the Channel unless Germans brought their capital ships too, which they couldn't, as they didn't have them at the time.

Read the book Invasion of England 1940: The Planning of Operation Sealion by Peter Schenk for a very torough inestigation and listing of the ACTUAL preperations of the Germans, and be amazed.

Also note, during the numerous landings in Italy, on several occasions Destroyers lost the fight against an 88mm's.
There were going to be plenty on barges and rafts so concluding that Sealion was not possible is rather bias
Typically British

Warspite1

Yes I would be amazed if the conclusion was that it was possible....

It's not sensitivity or being typically British that drives this thought process, its just simple logic that takes into account the forces involved (the Germans lost their navy in Norway - what exactly is going to escort these barges), the geography (The Channel, despite its size, is a notoriously difficult stretch of water) and the weather (look at what happened to one of the mulberries in 1944).


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/31/2012 8:39:03 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 113
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/31/2012 9:53:31 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
The conclusion is that they did put a tremendous effort in the preparations. And while the top brass never could make up their mind, those scheduled/expected to perform the invasion took it for real and did everything they could to prepare as good as they could.

The Germans didn't "lose" their Navy at Norway, they lost a part and the rest was damaged and not available for Sealion. But still, they had about 20, maybe 30, destroyers and smaller of destroyer type vessels. Including various older models. And let's not forget, the Brits had relatively small destroyer types at the time. Not to speak of the 25 or so U-boats deployed in the Channel, which oddly are left out of many British works on the subject.

The biggest threat to the invasion from the German point of view were the Cruisers, but that's why the Germans had an air force. And the Channel was located South of London, very close to German air bases. Besides, for all intent and purpose, the Germans HAD air superiority over the Channel.

The objective conclusion is that Sealion had a good chance of landing the troops of the first waves. Surely, there would have been casualties. Surely, it would have been difficult. The real problem would be to land the follow up waves and supply them. And that would be decided by a major air battle in which the Germans had the advantage of being much closer to their bases as previously. It would have been fought over water so less chance for British pilots to survive. And obviously, the British Navy would have to play a major part in it. How it would have gone is everybodies guess. Do I put my money on the Brits? YES! But is it a foregone conclusion, not on your life!

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 114
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/31/2012 10:16:52 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 17835
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

The conclusion is that they did put a tremendous effort in the preparations. And while the top brass never could make up their mind, those scheduled/expected to perform the invasion took it for real and did everything they could to prepare as good as they could.

The Germans didn't "lose" their Navy at Norway, they lost a part and the rest was damaged and not available for Sealion. But still, they had about 20, maybe 30, destroyers and smaller of destroyer type vessels. Including various older models. And let's not forget, the Brits had relatively small destroyer types at the time. Not to speak of the 25 or so U-boats deployed in the Channel, which oddly are left out of many British works on the subject.

The biggest threat to the invasion from the German point of view were the Cruisers, but that's why the Germans had an air force. And the Channel was located South of London, very close to German air bases. Besides, for all intent and purpose, the Germans HAD air superiority over the Channel.

The objective conclusion is that Sealion had a good chance of landing the troops of the first waves. Surely, there would have been casualties. Surely, it would have been difficult. The real problem would be to land the follow up waves and supply them. And that would be decided by a major air battle in which the Germans had the advantage of being much closer to their bases as previously. It would have been fought over water so less chance for British pilots to survive. And obviously, the British Navy would have to play a major part in it. How it would have gone is everybodies guess. Do I put my money on the Brits? YES! But is it a foregone conclusion, not on your life!
Warspite1

But remember, during the Battle of Britain the Germans got their tactics very, very wrong. As with all fantasy scenarios, such as Sealion, there is an automatic assumption that everything goes perfectly for the attackers and that, in this case, Goering would get the tactics spot on. You could argue the same of course for the defenders, the difference is that the defenders here have a MUCH bigger margin for error; simply put, the Germans - Army, Navy and Air Force - have to get everything right (and hope the weather remains kind for a lengthy period of time) to even have the slightest chance.

Well this one could run and run! I guess we shall agree to disagree.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 115
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 3/31/2012 9:04:19 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22581
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

The conclusion is that they did put a tremendous effort in the preparations. And while the top brass never could make up their mind, those scheduled/expected to perform the invasion took it for real and did everything they could to prepare as good as they could.

The Germans didn't "lose" their Navy at Norway, they lost a part and the rest was damaged and not available for Sealion. But still, they had about 20, maybe 30, destroyers and smaller of destroyer type vessels. Including various older models. And let's not forget, the Brits had relatively small destroyer types at the time. Not to speak of the 25 or so U-boats deployed in the Channel, which oddly are left out of many British works on the subject.

The biggest threat to the invasion from the German point of view were the Cruisers, but that's why the Germans had an air force. And the Channel was located South of London, very close to German air bases. Besides, for all intent and purpose, the Germans HAD air superiority over the Channel.

The objective conclusion is that Sealion had a good chance of landing the troops of the first waves. Surely, there would have been casualties. Surely, it would have been difficult. The real problem would be to land the follow up waves and supply them. And that would be decided by a major air battle in which the Germans had the advantage of being much closer to their bases as previously. It would have been fought over water so less chance for British pilots to survive. And obviously, the British Navy would have to play a major part in it. How it would have gone is everybodies guess. Do I put my money on the Brits? YES! But is it a foregone conclusion, not on your life!


War is won by logistics!

Germans could have trid the Sealion invasion and they might have succesfull landing in England - but they would be doomed there because the landed troops would eventually run out of ammo, fuel and supplies...

The Germans never had Mullbery harbours - they simply had to rely on capturing some ports in England - and to think that such port would be able to be defended agianst everything British would have thrown against it is impossible dearm for Germans!

BTW, there is one nice war game conducted in the, I think 1970's...

quote:


Operation Sealion - summary of an exercise held at the Staff College, Sandhurst in 1974.





The full text is in 'Sealion' by Richard Cox. The scenario
is based on the known plans of each side, plus previously
unpublished Admiralty weather records for September 1940.
Each side (played by British and German officers respectively)
was based in a command room, and the actual moves plotted
on a scale model of SE England constructed at the School
of Infantry. The panel of umpires included Adolf Galland,
Admiral Friedrich Ruge, Air Chief Marshal Sir Christopher
Foxley-Norris, Rear Admiral Edward Gueritz, General Heinz
Trettner and Major General Glyn Gilbert.

The main problem the Germans face is that are a) the
Luftwaffe has not yet won air supremacy; b) the possible
invasion dates are constrained by the weather and tides
(for a high water attack) and c) it has taken until
late September to assemble the necessary shipping.

Glossary
FJ = Fallschirmjaeger (German paratroops)
MTB = Motor Torpedo Boat (German equivalent, E-Boat)
DD = Destroyer
CA = Heavy Cruiser
BB = Battleship
CV = Aircraft Carrier

22nd September - morning
The first wave of a planned 330,000 men hit the beaches
at dawn. Elements of 9 divisions landed between
Folkestone and Rottingdean (near Brighton).
In addition 7th FJ Div landed at Lympne to take the airfield.

The invasion fleet suffered minor losses from MTBs during
the night crossing, but the RN had already lost one
CA and three DDs sunk, with one CA and two DDs damaged,
whilst sinking three German DDs. Within hours of the landings
which overwhelmed the beach defenders, reserve formations
were despatched to Kent. Although there were 25 divisions
in the UK, only 17 were fully equipped, and only three
were based in Kent, however the defence plan relied on
the use of mobile reserves and armoured and mechanised
brigades were committed as soon as the main landings were
identified.

Meanwhile the air battle raged, the Luftwaffe flew 1200
fighter and 800 bomber sorties before 1200 hrs. The RAF
even threw in training planes hastily armed with bombs,
but the Luftwaffe were already having problems with their
short ranged Me 109s despite cramming as many as possible
into the Pas de Calais.

22nd - 23rd September
The Germans had still not captured a major port, although
they started driving for Folkestone. Shipping unloading
on the beaches suffered heavy losses from RAF bombing
raids and then further losses at their ports in France.

The U-Boats, Luftwaffe and few surface ships had lost
contact with the RN, but then a cruiser squadron with
supporting DDs entered the Channel narrows and had to
run the gauntlet of long range coastal guns, E-Boats
and 50 Stukas. Two CAs were sunk and one damaged. However
a diversionary German naval sortie from Norway was
completely destroyed and other sorties by MTBS and DDs
inflicted losses on the shipping milling about in the
Channel. German shipping losses on the first day
amounted to over 25% of their invasion fleet, especially
the barges, which proved desperately unseaworthy.

23rd Sept dawn - 1400 hrs.
The RAF had lost 237 planes out 1048 (167 fighters and
70 bombers), and the navy had suffered enough losses such
that it was keeping its BBs and CVs back, but large
forces of DDs and CAs were massing. Air recon showed a
German buildup in Cherbourg and forces were diverted to
the South West.

The German Navy were despondant about their losses,
especially as the loss of barges was seriously
dislocating domestic industry. The Army and Airforce
commanders were jubilant however, and preperations for
the transfer of the next echelon continued along with
the air transport of 22nd Div, despite Luftwaffe losses
of 165 fighters and 168 bombers. Out of only 732 fighters
and 724 bombers these were heavy losses. Both sides
overestimated losses inflicted by 50%.

The 22nd Div airlanded successfully at Lympne, although
long range artillery fire directed by a stay-behind
commando group interdicted the runways. The first British
counterattacks by 42nd Div supported by an armoured
brigade halted the German 34th Div in its drive on Hastings.
7th Panzer Div was having difficulty with extensive
anti-tank obstacles and assault teams armed with sticky
bombs etc. Meanwhile an Australian Div had retaken
Newhaven (the only German port), however the New Zealand
Div arrived at Folkestone only to be attacked in the
rear by 22nd Airlanding Div. The division fell back on
Dover having lost 35% casualties.

Sep 23rd 1400 - 1900 hrs
Throughout the day the Luftwaffe put up a maximum effort,
with 1500 fighter and 460 bomber sorties, but the RAF
persisted in attacks on shipping and airfields. Much of
this effort was directed for ground support and air
resupply, despite Adm Raeders request for more aircover
over the Channel. The Home Fleet had pulled out of air
range however, leaving the fight in the hands of 57 DDs
and 17 CAs plus MTBs. The Germans could put very little
surface strength against this. Waves of DDs and CAs
entered the Channel, and although two were sunk by U-Boats,
they sank one U-Boat in return and did not stop. The German
flotilla at Le Havre put to sea (3 DD, 14 E-Boats) and at
dusk intercepted the British, but were wiped out, losing
all their DDs and 7 E-Boats.

The Germans now had 10 divisions ashore, but in many
cases these were incomplete and waiting for their
second echelon to arrive that night. The weather
was unsuitable for the barges however, and the decision
to sail was referred up the chain of command.

23rd Sep 1900 - Sep 24th dawn
The Fuhrer Conference held at 1800 broke out into bitter
inter-service rivalry - the Army wanted their second
echelon sent, and the navy protesting that the
weather was unsuitable, and the latest naval defeat
rendered the Channel indefensible without air support.
Goring countered this by saying it could only be done
by stopped the terror bombing of London, which in turn
Hitler vetoed. The fleet was ordered to stand by.

The RAF meanwhile had lost 97 more fighters leaving only
440. The airfields of 11 Group were cratered ruins, and
once more the threat of collapse, which had receded in
early September, was looming. The Luftwaffe had lost
another 71 fighters and 142 bombers. Again both sides
overestimated losses inflicted, even after allowing for
inflated figures.

On the ground the Germans made good progress towards Dover
and towards Canterbury, however they suffered reverses
around Newhaven when the 45th Div and Australians
attacked. At 2150 Hitler decided to launch the second wave,
but only the short crossing from Calais and Dunkirk. By
the time the order reached the ports, the second wave
could not possibly arrive before dawn. The 6th and 8th
divisions at Newhaven, supplied from Le Havre, would not
be reinforced at all.

Sep 24th dawn - Sep 28th
The German fleet set sail, the weather calmed, and U-Boats,
E-Boats and fighters covered them. However at daylight 5th
destroyer flotilla found the barges still 10 miles off
the coast and tore them to shreds. The Luftwaffe in turn
committed all its remaining bombers, and the RAF responded
with 19 squadrons of fighters. The Germans disabled two
CAs and four DDs, but 65% of the barges were sunk. The
faster steamers broke away and headed for Folkestone,
but the port had been so badly damaged that they could
only unload two at a time.

The failure on the crossing meant that the German
situation became desperate. The divisions had sufficient
ammunition for 2 to 7 days more fighting, but without
extra men and equipment could not extend the bridgehead.
Hitler ordered the deployment on reserve units to Poland
and the Germans began preparations for an evacuation as
further British arracks hemmed them in tighter. Fast
steamers and car ferries were assembled for evacuation
via Rye and Folkestone. Of 90,000 troops who landed
on 22nd september, only 15,400 returned to France, the rest
were killed or captured.



Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 116
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 4/2/2012 1:12:21 AM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

You Brits are overly sensitive on this subject.


I prefer the phrase overly analytical and anal when it comes to questions of historical plausibility, but lets agree to disagree.

quote:

Besides, hundreds of Destroyers? Not quite.


I expect the total available in British waters was in three figures. Naval OOBs are a bit of a moving target, but there were a dozen Destroyer flotillas based in home waters, together with maybe another 30 Cruisers and a half dozen capital ships. In addition, throw in another couple of hundred minesweepers, Sloops, anti-submarine ships, MTBs etc, all of which were capable of sinking a river barge packed with defenceless soldiers.

quote:

BB's? Not quite as it was already decided they would not enter the Channel unless Germans brought their capital ships too, which they couldn't, as they didn't have them at the time.


Let me put it this way. I consider it inconceivable that the capital ships would have stayed in Scapa flow if the Germans had been landing reinforcements and supplies unhindered.

quote:

Read the book Invasion of England 1940: The Planning of Operation Sealion by Peter Schenk for a very torough inestigation and listing of the ACTUAL preperations of the Germans, and be amazed.


Why? I don;t care how many barges they converted, how many rafts they stuck steel plates on etc. The fact is the plan was to drive 1000s of river barges in long vulnerable lines across choppy waters at 4 miles an hour with a handful of sausage making machines for protection. Additionally, the furthest away would have neeed to leave port 24 hours before landing making operational and tactical surprise a non starter. What amazes me is that anyone who simply reads out what was being planned thinks it stood a chance of success.

quote:

Also note, during the numerous landings in Italy, on several occasions Destroyers lost the fight against 88mm's.


Irrelevant. No British destroyer engaging German barges in mid channel was going to be engaged by an 88mm weapon on the french coast.

quote:

There were going to be plenty on barges and rafts so concluding that Sealion was not possible is rather bias




So, the answer to hundreds of British vessels rolling up and down long lines of German barges machine gunning at will was to build more barges than the Navy had ammo to blow out of the water? It would have been a slaughter. It isn't bias, it's just recognising the operational impossibility of what was being planned. Any barge would have been sunk by a 4 or 6 inch shell strike. The effect of machine guns or anti aircraft weapons on unprotected soldiers in slow moving barges is best not imagined.

The Germans would have run out of barges and rafts (no matter how many they had) long before the RN ran out of munitions.

quote:

Typically British


I disagree. It's simply common sense and the ability to see a ridiculous scheme when it is presented.

Regards,
ID

< Message edited by IronDuke -- 4/2/2012 1:16:10 AM >

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 117
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 4/2/2012 1:35:08 AM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

The conclusion is that they did put a tremendous effort in the preparations.


I don't get the point of this. Are my chances of walking to the moon improved if I spend three years planning and training for it?

quote:

And while the top brass never could make up their mind, those scheduled/expected to perform the invasion took it for real and did everything they could to prepare as good as they could.


The Kriegsmarine understood it was a joke and were dead against it.

quote:

The Germans didn't "lose" their Navy at Norway, they lost a part and the rest was damaged and not available for Sealion. But still, they had about 20, maybe 30, destroyers and smaller of destroyer type vessels. Including various older models. And let's not forget, the Brits had relatively small destroyer types at the time. Not to speak of the 25 or so U-boats deployed in the Channel, which oddly are left out of many British works on the subject.


If memory serves they lost 10 destroyers and a couple of Cruisers. Whatever they had left was outnumbered 5 or 6 to 1.

quote:

The biggest threat to the invasion from the German point of view were the Cruisers, but that's why the Germans had an air force. And the Channel was located South of London, very close to German air bases. Besides, for all intent and purpose, the Germans HAD air superiority over the Channel.


They didn't have that many aircraft capable of hitting ships moving at 30 knots and firing back. Besides, either on their way home, or on their way to the beaches, the barges would have been moving in darkness, which would have rendered the Luftwaffe impotent.

quote:

The objective conclusion is that Sealion had a good chance of landing the troops of the first waves.


some troops, not too mention the survivors of the 4200 horses they planned to take in the first wave.

quote:

Surely, there would have been casualties.


Akin to describing the first atomic test as "a bit of a bang".

quote:

Surely, it would have been difficult. The real problem would be to land the follow up waves and supply them. And that would be decided by a major air battle in which the Germans had the advantage of being much closer to their bases as previously. It would have been fought over water so less chance for British pilots to survive. And obviously, the British Navy would have to play a major part in it. How it would have gone is everybodies guess. Do I put my money on the Brits? YES! But is it a foregone conclusion, not on your life!


It was a foregone conclusion. The Germans couldn't defeat fighter command and given every single plane the allies put up could have sunk a barge, in standard FOW, any number would have got through.

Regards,
ID

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 118
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 4/2/2012 1:41:24 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/Miscellaneous/Sealion.htm

This is a pretty damning essay on why Sealion would not have been feasible. Or rather, it's possible that the Germans would have been able to land SOME troops on English soil, but their chances success were slim to none.

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 119
RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 - 4/3/2012 12:54:04 AM   
Kamil

 

Posts: 1888
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
I am convinced by IronDuke's arguments about likely impact of scale of the game on future entertaining value of this product.


Other thing that concerns me is possible incorporation of WitE combat mechanics with its leming-like tactics of charging towards range 0.

(in reply to gradenko_2000)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.148