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

RE: What new scenarios would you like to see?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 10/30/2005 1:56:33 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4667
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nelmsm

Not to get back on topic but I would like to see a hypothetical scenario where Germany achieves it's goal during the Battle of the Bulge and the American/British make a separate peace with Germany


... this wasn't going to happen. See Steve's post- a hypothetical scenario could be made here- but it's preposterous to have the western Allies making a seperate peace with Germany in 1945. During the battle of the Bulge, Roosevelt promised Churchill that if the Germans did succeed, the United States would raise two hundred divisions. I don't think he was kidding.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to nelmsm)
Post #: 61
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 10/31/2005 3:31:45 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 968
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

TOAW has an excellent and flexible operational model; any campaign or conflict which was decided by operational warfare can be done very well in TOAW. Politics and terrorism, however, could be done just as well by rules you come up with yourself.


If you want, you can call me over-ambitious. But, if TOAW is to become a sort of 'simulator' of operational combat -including modern, should it not not then be able to simulate the war on terror? Any war since WW2 has been influenced greatly, if not decided by political factors. The thing that makes all this so possible is that all Matrix is being tasked with, is to provide the tools while leaving it to the scenario designers to represent the actual conflicts.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 10/31/2005 3:40:49 AM >

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 62
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 10/31/2005 4:18:57 AM   
nelmsm


Posts: 916
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: nelmsm

Not to get back on topic but I would like to see a hypothetical scenario where Germany achieves it's goal during the Battle of the Bulge and the American/British make a separate peace with Germany


... this wasn't going to happen. See Steve's post- a hypothetical scenario could be made here- but it's preposterous to have the western Allies making a seperate peace with Germany in 1945. During the battle of the Bulge, Roosevelt promised Churchill that if the Germans did succeed, the United States would raise two hundred divisions. I don't think he was kidding.


Of course it is preposterous but it is a hypothetical. Say that the Germans reach Antwerp while forcing the surrender of 80,000 Americans and then force the surrender of the Brits. What then?

_____________________________

Texas, where we have the death penalty and aren't afraid to use it.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 63
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 10/31/2005 5:53:22 AM   
geozero


Posts: 1798
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Southern California, U.S.A.
Status: offline
quote:

Of course it is preposterous but it is a hypothetical. Say that the Germans reach Antwerp while forcing the surrender of 80,000 Americans and then force the surrender of the Brits. What then?


The Allies would have held together. And if no progress was made it is conceiveable that an atomic bomb would have been dropped on Berlin. Really at this stage of the war, Germany could have achieved victory by better defensive strategy, and not bold attacks.
Still, it would be an interesting scenario. That's really the beauty of TOAW to be able to create imaginative scenarios.

_____________________________

"I keep re-inventing myself"

(in reply to nelmsm)
Post #: 64
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 10/31/2005 2:40:51 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4667
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
If you want, you can call me over-ambitious. But, if TOAW is to become a sort of 'simulator' of operational combat -including modern, should it not not then be able to simulate the war on terror?


The war on terror isn't "operational combat". So no.

quote:

Any war since WW2 has been influenced greatly, if not decided by political factors.


Vietnam is one thing- the war on terror is quite another. In the war on terror, operational warfare has a very minor role, because the USA cannot be defeated in a war in which the enemy's forces could be represented by units in a TOAW scenario.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 65
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 10/31/2005 2:42:49 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4667
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nelmsm
Of course it is preposterous but it is a hypothetical.


I like hypotheticals to be rooted in reality. A better one- to achieve the same result- would be to suppose a successful July Plot dividing the Allies and, possibly, resulting in Russia at war with not just Germany but the western Allies as well.

quote:

Say that the Germans reach Antwerp while forcing the surrender of 80,000 Americans and then force the surrender of the Brits.


What do you mean "force the surrender of the Brits"?

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to nelmsm)
Post #: 66
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 10/31/2005 2:45:11 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4667
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

Really at this stage of the war, Germany could have achieved victory by better defensive strategy, and not bold attacks.


I don't think Germany could have achieved victory by either.

Really, given all the information available, and given that Hitler's objective was victory, not a TOAW-esque intent to hold Berlin for another three weeks, the Battle of the Bulge makes sense. It had this miniscule theoretical chance of actually giving the Germans a shot at success. Of course, Hitler overestimated his own strength and underestimated that of the Allies, this turned out to be wrong. But the decision to launch the offensive in the first place makes sense.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to geozero)
Post #: 67
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 10/31/2005 6:25:27 PM   
geozero


Posts: 1798
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Southern California, U.S.A.
Status: offline
They had a chance of success to disrupt the western allies, but doubtful that a single battle could have made a difference or let alone win the war for the Germans. It may have bought the Germans a few more weeks, perhaps. I doubt that 80,000 allies would have surrendered, there was an overwhelming superiority against the Germans. They were finished...

_____________________________

"I keep re-inventing myself"

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 68
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 10/31/2005 9:28:41 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4667
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero
They had a chance of success to disrupt the western allies, but doubtful that a single battle could have made a difference or let alone win the war for the Germans. It may have bought the Germans a few more weeks, perhaps.


Yeah. It looks like we're on the same page here.

My point above is worth restating, though. From a wargamer's point of view, delaying the Allies by a few weeks makes perfect sense; the scenario ends and they don't have enough VPs for a victory. This is fine from the point of view of Allied objectives; they did want the war done with sooner rather than later. But it leaves something to be desired for the Germans. The nation facing defeat would rather throw away its remaining time for a long shot at victory. I can't imagine a way to model this in a scenario without wrecking game balance, however.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to geozero)
Post #: 69
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 10/31/2005 10:23:57 PM   
Pippin


Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline
quote:

... this wasn't going to happen. See Steve's post- a hypothetical scenario could be made here- but it's preposterous to have the western Allies making a seperate peace with Germany in 1945.


Check your historical reccords... The germans and british have met up before on (secret) deals during the time-period. Stalin knew what was going on, yet people called him paranoid.



_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves…

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 70
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 10/31/2005 10:25:26 PM   
geozero


Posts: 1798
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Southern California, U.S.A.
Status: offline
It would be a fun scenario. Someone should make it.

_____________________________

"I keep re-inventing myself"

(in reply to Pippin)
Post #: 71
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 10/31/2005 11:17:14 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4667
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

Check your historical reccords... The germans and british have met up before on (secret) deals during the time-period. Stalin knew what was going on, yet people called him paranoid.


There was no genuine prospect of a seperate peace. There were talks of agreements, such as the one to trade trucks for the lives of Jews, and there were phoney negotiations with the Germans intended to get information out of them. The British never had any intention of making a seperate peace with Hitler's Germany.

Stalin was paranoid. A real lunatic. Fortunately he got a grip on things better than Hitler ever did.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Pippin)
Post #: 72
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/1/2005 6:06:03 AM   
nelmsm


Posts: 916
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: nelmsm
Of course it is preposterous but it is a hypothetical.


I like hypotheticals to be rooted in reality. A better one- to achieve the same result- would be to suppose a successful July Plot dividing the Allies and, possibly, resulting in Russia at war with not just Germany but the western Allies as well.

quote:

Say that the Germans reach Antwerp while forcing the surrender of 80,000 Americans and then force the surrender of the Brits.


What do you mean "force the surrender of the Brits"?


Well I meant the 21st Army Group. Wouldn't they have been cut off in Belgium/Holland if the Germans reached Antwerp?

_____________________________

Texas, where we have the death penalty and aren't afraid to use it.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 73
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/1/2005 2:22:33 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4667
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nelmsm

Well I meant the 21st Army Group. Wouldn't they have been cut off in Belgium/Holland if the Germans reached Antwerp?


Right. But you're talking about twenty plus divisions here. They'd break out.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to nelmsm)
Post #: 74
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/1/2005 2:59:14 PM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 943
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline
Actually, it could make a fun scenario. What I meant was that I'd find a smaller one, based on the attmpts to break in/out of the pocket, to be more interesting, not that the idea as presented had no merit at all. If that is what came across, I'm sorry, it was unintentional.

Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 75
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/3/2005 11:25:43 AM   
Drax Kramer

 

Posts: 156
Joined: 9/13/2004
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
I'd like to see a scenario covering fighting on Guadalcanal.


Drax

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 76
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/4/2005 2:33:53 PM   
Jeremy Mac Donald

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/7/2000
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
While I'm at it, how about a comprehensive 'War on Terror' scenario starting on 9/11 that would encompass the entire middle east and southern asia that would allow several options(and consequences).(Hmmm...Indonesia?)...

While there is an excellent Persian Gulf II scenario kicking around I don't think anyone has done a War on Terror one. In fact I can't really see how such a scenario could be made using anything like TOAW. Such a scenario would be phenominally political and how do you measure victory?

Interesting concept though - and I would like it if limited moves in this direction were possible. Curt Chambers did an excellent scenario about the War in Vietnam thats truely impressive but twists TOAW out of shape significantly. It'd be nice if we could one day get updates that would make it possible to model Vietnam.

_____________________________

Necesse est multos timeat quem multi timent

"He whom many fear, fears many"

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 77
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/4/2005 6:26:15 PM   
redcoat


Posts: 644
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
I would like to play a hypothetical American Civil War scenario ... set in the 1930s. It would be a divisional level game.

Background:

The first civil war ended as a stalemate - after Lee's victory at Gettysburg. The USA and CSA co-exist uneasily until the 1930s when an incoming US President - called Bush incidentally - decides to resurrect the long-dead ideal of the 'Union'. His ulterior motive is to bring the oil reserves of Texas until US control.

Both the US and CSA have small standing armies - backed up by extensive militia reserves. Neither country has been to war since the first Civil War. Both sides have some armoured and air units.

The US will receive many more reinforcements in the medium to long term - because of its larger industrial base. But the CSA has higher quality units. The resolve of the CSA to win the war is much greater than that of the US.

To win the scenario the US will have to occupy most of the CSA's major urban centres. The CSA wins the scenario by holding out.




(in reply to Jeremy Mac Donald)
Post #: 78
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/4/2005 9:58:00 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4667
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: redcoat

The first civil war ended as a stalemate - after Lee's victory at Gettysburg. The USA and CSA co-exist uneasily until the 1930s when an incoming US President - called Bush incidentally - decides to resurrect the long-dead ideal of the 'Union'. His ulterior motive is to bring the oil reserves of Texas until US control.


Is it really necessary to insert this smug nonsense about Bush into the scenario?

Anyway, there are already a couple of scenarios covering this concept (one set in 1940, the other in 1914);
http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=70
http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=670

I haven't looked at the first one lately, but the latter's not bad. By all means design another such scenario if that's what you had in mind. But if you were just looking to play one, here they are.

quote:

Both the US and CSA have small standing armies - backed up by extensive militia reserves.


Given that these two countries clearly have some outstanding issues, in addition to an enormous frontier, surely the two would have large armies? Note that since militia forces weren't really able to stand up to regular troops in the 1860s, it's unlikely that they will be of any significance in the 1930s.

quote:

The US will receive many more reinforcements in the medium to long term - because of its larger industrial base.


I'll note here that the passage of time means that this advantage- already substantial in the 1860s- will be overwhelming by the time of this scenario. You'd have to suppose that, perhaps due to the increased militarisation of the Union, there has been much less immigration.

quote:

The resolve of the CSA to win the war is much greater than that of the US.


Yeah. The scenario lasts until the next Presidential election.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to redcoat)
Post #: 79
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/4/2005 10:38:42 PM   
stauffenberg

 

Posts: 302
Joined: 12/23/2002
From: Outremer
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nelmsm

Of course it is preposterous but it is a hypothetical. Say that the Germans reach Antwerp while forcing the surrender of 80,000 Americans and then force the surrender of the Brits. What then?


My what-if scenario "Rundstedt's Plan Martin" examines this and other alternatives:

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/hosted/mcbride/


You also might want to look at an unusual book that examines this and other what-if situations:

Tsouras, Peter, ed. Battle of the Bulge: Hitler's Alternate Scenarios,
Greenhill Books, 2004

Daniel



_____________________________

The Great War ver. 2.2:
“It’s a great game, and at last one worth playing.”
--T.E. Lawrence

For neither King nor Kaiser
Rugged Defense: http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/news.php

(in reply to nelmsm)
Post #: 80
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/4/2005 11:03:31 PM   
redcoat


Posts: 644
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Anyway, there are already a couple of scenarios covering this concept (one set in 1940, the other in 1914);
http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=70
http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=670

I haven't looked at the first one lately, but the latter's not bad. By all means design another such scenario if that's what you had in mind. But if you were just looking to play one, here they are.


Great! I didn’t know about the scenarios covering this concept. I will give the latter a try.

quote:

Given that these two countries clearly have some outstanding issues, in addition to an enormous frontier, surely the two would have large armies?


The two wouldn’t necessarily have large armies. The US and Canada have an enormous frontier. These countries had outstanding issues during the first half of the 19th Century but they didn’t maintain large armies then … or later.

A prolonged period of peace between the 1860s and 1930s may have led to a reduction in tension and militarization. The US-CSA border may have become as quiet as the US-Canadian border. The two countries may therefore have relied upon large reserve forces of militia (National Guardsmen).

quote:

Note that since militia forces weren't really able to stand up to regular troops in the 1860s, it's unlikely that they will be of any significance in the 1930s.


When I refer to militia I mean National Guardsmen. They may not be quite as good as full-time regular forces – but they can stand up to regular forces – especially if they are defending their homes.

quote:

I'll note here that the passage of time means that this advantage- already substantial in the 1860s- will be overwhelming by the time of this scenario. You'd have to suppose that, perhaps due to the increased militarisation of the Union, there has been much less immigration.


The North had an overwhelming industrial advantage over the South in the 1860s. This advantage was one of the main reasons why they won. They would also have had an enormous advantage in the 1930s. However, the US only has a limited amount of time to win the scenario. Moreover, the US will not accept casualties as readily as the CSA for political reasons.

quote:

Yeah. The scenario lasts until the next Presidential election.


Exactly! The US has to win the war very quickly – or the President will loose the election to a Peace Party candidate.


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 81
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/5/2005 12:45:33 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4667
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: redcoat
The two wouldn’t necessarily have large armies. The US and Canada have an enormous frontier. These countries had outstanding issues during the first half of the 19th Century but they didn’t maintain large armies then … or later.


There was never any risk of war between the two, though, because Britain and the United States both had far too much to lose and far too little to gain from such a war. The same is not true of the two states we're discussing here- since we do have them merrily charging off to war. It's hard to imagine the USA electing a President bent on crushing the Confederacy unless there is an underlying tension.

quote:

The two countries may therefore have relied upon large reserve forces of militia (National Guardsmen).


The National Guard is quite different from a militia.

quote:

The North had an overwhelming industrial advantage over the South in the 1860s. This advantage was one of the main reasons why they won. They would also have had an enormous advantage in the 1930s.


My point is that the gap between the two will have grown in this time. Perhaps if you envisage a South which has colonised Oklahoma and acquired Cuba (and added it as a state rather than a territory), this would help to counteract this.

quote:

Exactly! The US has to win the war very quickly – or the President will loose the election to a Peace Party candidate.


Well, whilst the Union barely won the war in four years in the 1860s, the relative power of the defensive is much reduced by the 1930s, with the improvement in communications, the advent of airpower, and the mechanisation of warfare. I suppose it would be established in testing whether the scenario was balanced in this time frame; if not, then one could add external intervention to rebalance it.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to redcoat)
Post #: 82
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/5/2005 1:02:07 AM   
Fidel_Helms

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 3/9/2003
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor
While I'm at it, how about a comprehensive 'War on Terror' scenario starting on 9/11 that would encompass the entire middle east and southern asia that would allow several options(and consequences).(Hmmm...Indonesia?)...

While there is an excellent Persian Gulf II scenario kicking around I don't think anyone has done a War on Terror one. In fact I can't really see how such a scenario could be made using anything like TOAW. Such a scenario would be phenominally political and how do you measure victory?

Interesting concept though - and I would like it if limited moves in this direction were possible. Curt Chambers did an excellent scenario about the War in Vietnam thats truely impressive but twists TOAW out of shape significantly. It'd be nice if we could one day get updates that would make it possible to model Vietnam.


In what way does CSV not model Vietnam properly? I never found any major fault with it.

(in reply to Jeremy Mac Donald)
Post #: 83
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/5/2005 3:34:23 AM   
redcoat


Posts: 644
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

There was never any risk of war between the two, though, because Britain and the United States both had far too much to lose and far too little to gain from such a war.


There was more than a risk of war between the two countries in the early 19th Century. Britain and the US actually went to war in 1812.

quote:

The same is not true of the two states we're discussing here- since we do have them merrily charging off to war. It's hard to imagine the USA electing a President bent on crushing the Confederacy unless there is an underlying tension.


I do not have the two states charging ‘merrily’ off to war. I have the US going to war during a turbulent decade of social, economic and political crisis. The United States suffered greatly during the Great Depression of the 1930s. This time of crisis could have led to the election of a radical President with a visionary idea: the re-unification of an industrial North with an oil rich South.

quote:

The National Guard is quite different from a militia.


Not if you use my very broad definition. In any case, when I referred to militia I meant National Guard.

quote:

My point is that the gap between the two will have grown in this time. Perhaps if you envisage a South which has colonised Oklahoma and acquired Cuba (and added it as a state rather than a territory), this would help to counteract this.


I am assuming that the peace treaty that ended the Civil War also allowed the Confederacy to expand to the Pacific Ocean. The territories of Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona would join the CSA. California would also be partitioned between the North and the South.

I am also supposing that the CSA would have industrialized after the Civil War. The Government of the CSA would have established new heavy industries out of strategic necessity. Moreover, the development of the petrochemical industry would have given the CSA economy a boost. By the 1930s the South could have narrowed the industrial gap with the North.

quote:

Well, whilst the Union barely won the war in four years in the 1860s, the relative power of the defensive is much reduced by the 1930s, with the improvement in communications, the advent of airpower, and the mechanisation of warfare. I suppose it would be established in testing whether the scenario was balanced in this time frame; if not, then one could add external intervention to rebalance it.


The US military was far from fully mechanized in the early 1930s. Many of the units in the scenario would be ‘leg’ infantry. Moreover, at the beginning of the scenario there would be more ‘horse’ cavalry than ‘armoured cavalry’. There would also be very few aircraft available at the beginning of the scenario. More motorised infantry, armour and aircraft would be introduced as the scenario progressed.

The South was able to stave off the North for four years in the 1860s. With improved communications, concrete fortifications, machine guns and superior morale the CSA may have been able to survive in the 1930s. You have to remember that the power of the ‘defensive’ was still very strong in the 1930s. The hypothetical second civil war would have had more in common with the Spanish Civil War than with the Second World War.

Your point about external intervention is an important one. A CSA in the 1930s – as apposed to the 1860s - would have been a recognized sovereign state. Some members of the international community (including Britain) may have come to its aid – directly or indirectly. The US may therefore have had to keep large numbers of troops stationed along its very long Canadian border ... and coastline. At the very least the US economy may have been subjected to international sanctions – including a crippling oil embargo.

During the original Civil War the North was able to isolate the South from the rest of the world with a naval blockade. In the 1930s a naval blockade of a sovereign country would have been much more difficult to enforce. It could have led to a conflict with Britain or other powers. Moreover, in the 1930s the CSA may have been able to import war materials – including European weaponry - via Mexico.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 84
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/5/2005 4:14:12 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4667
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: redcoat

There was more than a risk of war between the two countries in the early 19th Century. Britain and the US actually went to war in 1812.


Right. I suppose you're going to argue that the fact that the two countries had no major land armies in North America prior to that is proof that same could happen in this case. This ignores the fact that Britain was fighting a major war in Europe at the time and that the war which resulted was not decided on the Canadian frontier anyway.

quote:

I do not have the two states charging ‘merrily’ off to war. I have the US going to war during a turbulent decade of social, economic and political crisis. The United States suffered greatly during the Great Depression of the 1930s. This time of crisis could have led to the election of a radical President with a visionary idea: the re-unification of an industrial North with an oil rich South.


Physically controlling more oil is unlikely to make much difference. The Union has masses of natural resources- just that by the vagaries of economics, they're unable to exploit them properly. What's more, the Union will never go for an obviously costly and bloody war with a country with which they have good relations- not for all the natural resources in the world. Why not just invade Venezuala? Far easier.

An alternative would be to imagine some Northern state or other- one which is perhaps not really in sync with the rest of the country politically- decides that the Federal Government's mismanagement of the Depression has gone too far and decides to secede. At this point the small Union army moves into to crush the session, and the government starts bringing up old memories with slogans like "Don't let it happen again". Naturally, this offends the Confederacy- which proceeds to offer this errant state membership. When it accepts, the Union declares war.

I think that's more feasible than the 'Blood for oil' storyline you had going. Especially when it comes to arranging for the two countries to be much less militarised.

quote:

I am assuming that the peace treaty that ended the Civil War also allowed the Confederacy to expand to the Pacific Ocean. The territories of Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona would join the CSA. California would also be partitioned between the North and the South.


I don't think the Confederacy was interested in acquiring California. They didn't want aggrandisment- they just wanted to be left alone. The rest is all reasonable enough- this is all largely empty space which can be filled with southern settlers.

quote:

I am also supposing that the CSA would have industrialized after the Civil War.


Up to a point, but their population as of 1930 was a smaller fraction of the North's than it had been in 1860.

quote:

Moreover, the development of the petrochemical industry would have given the CSA economy a boost.


You keep talking about oil as though it's the most important thing in the world. Does Saudi Arabia have comparable wealth to western nations? No- because oil doesn't make that much of a difference. Especially since as of 1930 it's only been a significant commodity for the past 20 years. Before that, coal was where it was at.

quote:

The US military was far from fully mechanized in the early 1930s. Many of the units in the scenario would be ‘leg’ infantry.


Right. Take a look at what the US Army looked like in 1861. Wasn't much. By year three of the war it's going to be totally unrecognisable.

quote:

With improved communications, concrete fortifications, machine guns and superior morale the CSA may have been able to survive in the 1930s. You have to remember that the power of the ‘defensive’ was still very strong in the 1930s. The hypothetical second civil war would have had more in common with the Spanish Civil War than with the Second World War.


Actually I seriously doubt it. While the logistical problems of the 1860s have faded away due to industrialisation and population growth, the problems of the First World War- that the front was so packed with troops that there was no room for manoeuvre- is totally non-existant in North America. The gap between the Appalachians and the sea alone is as wide as the gap from the Channel to Verdun.

quote:

Your point about external intervention is an important one. A CSA in the 1930s – as apposed to the 1860s - would have been a recognized sovereign state. Some members of the international community (including Britain) may have come to its aid – directly or indirectly.


Well, you have to decide what's happened in the rest of the world in the intervening time. Naturally, if things are as they were, Britain etc. is going to be disinclined to get too distracted. She has problems of her own- economic and international. The Confederacy can probably buy arms. More than that is less likely.

quote:

At the very least the US economy may have been subjected to international sanctions – including a crippling oil embargo.


I dunno. See the quick and effective action taken by the League of Nations over Abyssinia. Ultimately, the international community didn't have the will to stop countries doing as they pleased at this point.

quote:

During the original Civil War the North was able to isolate the South from the rest of the world with a naval blockade. In the 1930s a naval blockade of a sovereign country would have been much more difficult to enforce.


The naval blockade wouldn't be a problem, really. As you say, it's a matter of whether or not the South can import materials via Mexico.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to redcoat)
Post #: 85
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/5/2005 5:32:48 AM   
Fidel_Helms

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 3/9/2003
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
An interesting point to consider in all of this is that at the time this scenario would take place, the vast majority of American oil imports came from Mexico. Neither Venezuela nor the Middle East were major producers at the time. So a Confederacy which has good relations with Mexico(or has annexed parts of it) and holds most of the Southwest drastically alters the strategic position and the industrial capacity of the United States during this time frame.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 86
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/5/2005 12:29:54 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4667
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

An interesting point to consider in all of this is that at the time this scenario would take place, the vast majority of American oil imports came from Mexico. Neither Venezuela nor the Middle East were major producers at the time. So a Confederacy which has good relations with Mexico(or has annexed parts of it) and holds most of the Southwest drastically alters the strategic position and the industrial capacity of the United States during this time frame.


If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Fidel_Helms)
Post #: 87
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/5/2005 12:59:13 PM   
geozero


Posts: 1798
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Southern California, U.S.A.
Status: offline
Zulu Wars...that's what I'd like to see, if a new and improved TOAW can handle other time periods better.

_____________________________

"I keep re-inventing myself"

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 88
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/5/2005 1:57:12 PM   
bluermonkey

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 10/9/2005
Status: offline
Has there ever been a TOAW scenario covering the Japanese war in China from 1936 onwards? Could be interesting...

(in reply to geozero)
Post #: 89
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 11/5/2005 4:33:38 PM   
sstevens06


Posts: 173
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bluermonkey

Has there ever been a TOAW scenario covering the Japanese war in China from 1936 onwards? Could be interesting...



Not that I know of. Due to the size and scope of that conflict the scenario would have to be a 'monster.'

(in reply to bluermonkey)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.156