RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> After Action Report



Message


Courtenay -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (9/5/2018 12:51:03 PM)

Just really went back and looked. (The previous post was made after only a brief glance.) Before, it took effort for me to look at the graphs; more effort than I wanted to spend. Now it's easy, I just look at them. Again, thank you.




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (9/6/2018 12:54:38 AM)

@ ashpa (Pat), great tip. Thanks!

@ Centuur, Courtenay. Glad the plots are easier to read. I'll stick to those colors.

[:)]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (9/9/2018 5:18:33 PM)

Impulse Summaries.

# Impulse pairs/halves is equivalent to the number of weather rolls made for a given turn. In general this applies to two impulses (hence impulse pair) but occasionally on applied to one impulse (hence impulse pair/halve) because of the turn ending.

The last three columns, respectively, in the table are the average number of weather rolls made, average number of axis impulses and average number of allied impulses for each turn and overall (i.e., total).

My impression until I compiled these stats was that the axis went first more than the allies and had significantly more impulses than the allies did. However, the allies actually moved first on 23 of the 41 turns (or 56% of the time). Over 41 turns, the axis had a total of 141 impulses and the allies 139. To a precision on 1-decimal place that's statically the same number of impulses per turn (i.e., 3.4) for both the axis and allies.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/CE764199125C4995AD065F1BE70EDFED.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (9/9/2018 5:21:57 PM)

Weather Summaries.

This table provides a breakdown of the weather number of impulse pairs/halves (left side) and percentage (right side) actually seen over the entire game by turn and zone.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/74861FA85E174C3EA11F21CC5EB7E768.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (9/9/2018 5:28:40 PM)

Action Summaries

The table provides the action summaries by country and turn (and overall (total)). The left side of the table are the raw number totals and the right side are the averages.

An interesting fact, and this is entirely a reflection on my play, no one took an air impulse the entire game.

[image]local://upfiles/31901/6227B49C1EE1441584D327D5332A3AE5.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/2/2018 9:29:10 PM)

Though I'd post my latest iteration of my "Historical World in Flames (HWIF)" rule set. Be advise all this is, and will continue to be, a work in progress.



[image]local://upfiles/31901/5E0196E32C244CB686ABFBA1AF93A24D.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/2/2018 9:30:16 PM)

...

[image]local://upfiles/31901/C53950A85F99458B99B57EB67B27B721.jpg[/image]




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/2/2018 9:32:32 PM)

...

[image]local://upfiles/31901/4CACF68186AC45BEBEF851C08885FEBC.jpg[/image]




Courtenay -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/3/2018 9:11:43 PM)

I don't like the CW not being able to interfere with a German invasion of Norway. Take a look at the historical German naval losses during the Norwegian campaign.

Also, I disagree with your H.2.1a: If the Baltic is not frozen, the Germans could and did ship the iron ore through the Baltic. Also, I would hadd to H.2.1b that the Allies must have an SCS in the Norwegian sea.




rkr1958 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/4/2018 5:07:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

I don't like the CW not being able to interfere with a German invasion of Norway. Take a look at the historical German naval losses during the Norwegian campaign.

Also, I would hadd to H.2.1b that the Allies must have an SCS in the Norwegian sea.
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with these two points and will update accordingly. With respect to an allied SCS in the Norwegian sea what do you think about 1 Swedish RP lost per SCS, or should all 3 be lost if only 1?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Also, I disagree with your H.2.1a: If the Baltic is not frozen, the Germans could and did ship the iron ore through the Baltic.
My though there is that if the British control Narvik then through diplomatic pressure on Sweden they're able to stop the iron ore shipments to Germany. Or should Britain have to invade Sweden to do that? Historically, what was Churchill's plan to stop the iron ore if the Brits had been successful in Narvik? Would that have required war with Sweden?




warspite1 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/4/2018 5:43:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

I don't like the CW not being able to interfere with a German invasion of Norway. Take a look at the historical German naval losses during the Norwegian campaign.

Also, I would hadd to H.2.1b that the Allies must have an SCS in the Norwegian sea.
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with these two points and will update accordingly. With respect to an allied SCS in the Norwegian sea what do you think about 1 Swedish RP lost per SCS, or should all 3 be lost if only 1?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Also, I disagree with your H.2.1a: If the Baltic is not frozen, the Germans could and did ship the iron ore through the Baltic.
My though there is that if the British control Narvik then through diplomatic pressure on Sweden they're able to stop the iron ore shipments to Germany. Or should Britain have to invade Sweden to do that? Historically, what was Churchill's plan to stop the iron ore if the Brits had been successful in Narvik? Would that have required war with Sweden?

warspite1

My 2 cents. If the RN can interfere then the chances are there will be no invasion as per most? (M)WIF games. How about a halfway house? Yes the RN can interfere but there are suitable modifiers to the die so that the Germans would need to be unlucky to be found? That way the German player may be more inclined to follow history?

As for the Baltic the idling of the resources would only happen when the Gulf of Bothnia is frozen - the occupation of Narvik on its own means - or should mean - nothing.

There would be unlikely to be any pressure Churchill could bring to bear on Sweden. Sweden was reliant on Germany for vital imports - she wasn't going to stop sending iron ore to Germany through fear of invasion and/or fear of being economically blockaded.

What was Churchill's plan? Er..... there was no plan!!! Please read Norway 1940 (Kersaudy) or The German Invasion of Norway (Haarr). The British and French go to war Sept-June 1940 is a cracking comedy - and the Norwegian Campaign just its most comedic chapter.... or would be if it wasn't so serious.




brian brian -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/5/2018 3:44:50 AM)

On the realism front, I don’t think Hitler could have crossed the Rhine while the Poles continued to fight - OKH might have gone into open revolt as a new Two Front War was their deepest fear. And the Wehrmacht could not just suddenly decide - ahh, we have Warsaw in artillery range, so start crossing the Belgian frontier, right now - campaigns have to be planned in advance, and I just don’t agree that OKH would have ever made such plans.

OTOH - with Warsaw captured at the end of September, then all bets are off. And indeed, Manstein was tasked with planning a campaign in the west in Oct. 39. But a bad weather roll for Adolf put the final ixnay on that idea.

But suppose Oct. & Nov. 39 were full of weeks of Panzer weather? No one knows what was possible.

The Wehrmacht was certainly nimble enough, with an excellent officer corps, to pull off manuevers as in World in Flames. (For some other powers in 39-41, I think WiF is rather charitable).

So a more realistic idea, imo, would be to simply prevent a German DoW on Holland or Belgium until Warsaw is captured.




brian brian -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/5/2018 4:01:42 AM)

As for the Finns, they had been colonized by Russia in their living memory. They did slow-walk German plans in the far north for sure, probably out of a sense of conservative realism, and I believe some diplomatic pressure on such questions from the UK and especially the USA, which had a significant amount of recent Finnish immigrants with existing ties to Finland.

But the Sept. 1, 1939 border was hardly a perfect one and many non Russian speaking minorities lived, unhappily, on the Russian side of the line even before it was moved further west in the March, 1940 settlement of the Winter War.

A common House Rule in the game (and maybe other WWII games) is to not allow the Finns to cross the Svir River, which has a basis in history.

But then the Finns also would not really participate in trying to finish the Siege of Leningrad, either. If that had ended in a German victory there would have been an even more appalling massacre than the already appalling history. One has to wonder what Finland would have done then.

Perhaps an historical rule would be to prohibit Finnish units from advancing more than two hexes from the 1939 border, and/or never putting a Finnish ZoC on the rail link to Murmansk, and not being able to attack Leningrad at all ... unless Germany held Moscow. Then, no restrictions.




brian brian -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/5/2018 4:16:12 AM)

Re: UK & Scandinavia & relations with a signer of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, in the first seven months of the war, read Churchill’s own book of thoughts on WWII. He was not one to think small, nor was he any more aware than anyone else was, including the Germans themselves, just how much new technology and ability to reap its rewards had already sealed France’s fate. Which made any of his ideas re: Scandinavia a totally moot point, quite fortunately for the Allies. The eventual evacuation of Narvik was the true reality.

Suppose OKW’s operation in Denmark & Norway had been scheduled to launch just one week later, and the Royal Navy had mined The Leads and attempted to land the embarked troops in Norwegian ports. No one knows how all that would have turned out.

I’m not sure you can write a perfect rule for this. The historical leaders valued the Swedish ore quite differently than WiF does, and again the obviated coming defeat of France was not known to these leaders.


If you want to play an historical game, just have the Axis do historical DoW dates, and leave it at that.




warspite1 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/5/2018 4:27:21 AM)

I agree that a German orchestrated two front war in real life was a major no-no. But after Poland falls?

Everything I've read seems to indicate that a 1939 invasion of the west would have been disaster for two reasons: a) the plan at that time was for the unimaginative slog through Belgium which would have been highly unlikely (impossible?) to see a decisive outcome (indeed the goal was simply to take as much Belgian and northern French territory as possible to take the war to Britain and protect the Ruhr) and b) the fighting in Poland had brought stocks of ammunition dangerously low and most units needed a period of rest and refit to build strength back up.

On the 8 October 1939 the German Q-M wrote to Halder:

Ammunition: we have enough for an operation with about one third of our divisions, for fourteen days combat, then we shall have a reserve for fourteen more combat days.

By mid-November there were only 5 panzer divisions available for combat. So even Fuhrer weather would have been of only a limited help if there are insufficient mechanised units to take advantage.

The German General Staff was impotent against the Fuhrer but were saved by the weather, a 1939 attack would almost certainly have been disaster for the German Army.




warspite1 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/5/2018 4:41:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

He was not one to think small, nor was he any more aware than anyone else was, including the Germans themselves, just how much new technology and ability to reap its rewards had already sealed France’s fate. Which made any of his ideas re: Scandinavia a totally moot point, quite fortunately for the Allies. The eventual evacuation of Narvik was the true reality.

Suppose OKW’s operation in Denmark & Norway had been scheduled to launch just one week later, and the Royal Navy had mined The Leads and attempted to land the embarked troops in Norwegian ports. No one knows how all that would have turned out.

warspite1

But how would it be a moot point if action was taken (and let's say the Germans did plan to invade a few days later). Once its happened its happened and the consequences are then to be felt. What happens in France still happens - maybe, maybe not. That would depend on Germany's reaction to a British landing in Norway, which itself would hugely depend on Norway (and particularly Sweden's) reaction to the British move.




brian brian -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/5/2018 2:28:38 PM)

My point was the collapse of France would make most any of the many theoretical Allied plans in Scandinavia come to a screeching halt, as seen in history @ Narvik in early June. Once the Luftwaffe was in Norway, Allied operational ability there was going to end. Perhaps the UK would have ‘rolled well’ on the Norwegian reaction table and gained 1 or more new Allies in the North. But this seems quite unlikely to me.

I have often wondered if any Norwegian academics have ever written on the what-if possibilities if the German and British H-Hour times had been switched up from how it did happen in history.




warspite1 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/5/2018 4:09:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

My point was the collapse of France would make most any of the many theoretical Allied plans in Scandinavia come to a screeching halt, as seen in history @ Narvik in early June. Once the Luftwaffe was in Norway, Allied operational ability there was going to end. Perhaps the UK would have ‘rolled well’ on the Norwegian reaction table and gained 1 or more new Allies in the North. But this seems quite unlikely to me.

I have often wondered if any Norwegian academics have ever written on the what-if possibilities if the German and British H-Hour times had been switched up from how it did happen in history.
warspite1

Understood but my point was that the attack on France and the Low Countries, let alone the victory over those countries, was post Weserubung/R4.

As said, Narvik on its own meant nothing. Make no mistake the Allies were going to have to enter northern Sweden to stop Iron Ore getting to Germany when the Gulf of Bothnia was unfrozen.

The reactions of Norway and Sweden would dictate what action Germany would take. A delay in Case Yellow was certainly possible depending upon how much additional troop and air resources Hitler felt it necessary to employ in Scandanavia. As with Greece and the USSR, Hitler would likely have been uncomfortable attacking France with Scandinavia aflame....

In such a scenario it would have been possible (although by no means the only possibility) that, through luck rather than good judgement, France could be saved.




Zorch -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/6/2018 7:31:53 PM)

There would have been some short term disruption to the flow of iron ore if the in-shore Norwegian route was closed. But with summer coming, it would not have amounted to much until the Baltic froze in November 1940. The British had unrealistic expectations. They were under pressure to do something, anything during the Phony War.

Any war with Norway/Sweden would have had repercussions with the USA, which was far more important than any short term disruption of the iron ore trade.

Churchill wanted to behave like the British did in the Napoleonic Wars. Such as his crazy scheme to send half the Royal Navy there in Fall '39 to interdict all the Swedish ore. He vastly over-estimated British strength and discounted the reaction of neutrals.




warspite1 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/7/2018 2:56:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Any war with Norway/Sweden would have had repercussions with the USA, which was far more important than any short term disruption of the iron ore trade.

warspite1

One of the great what-ifs....

If the British had launched R4 what would the Norwegians have done? The obvious conclusion is they would have gone to war with the Western Allies and invited the Germans in. But maybe not. Was Norway really going to put herself on the 'wrong' side or would the government make diplomatic grumblings while at the same time accepting - albeit it reluctantly - the landing of troops?

Regardless of whether the latter came about or not, with key ports occupied Weserubung, if attempted, would be a different proposition - and would be most interesting if the Allies got there just 24 hours earlier and Weserubung proceeded as planned (the ships already being at sea). In such a scenario the Germans could well have been dealt a very bloody nose at Narvik, Bergen and Trondheim.

None of the above would alter the fact that the Western Allied troops deployed (in number and equipment) were woefully inadequate, and the Germans would take Oslo and southern Norway pretty quickly, but already the complexion of the campaign has altered dramatically and German losses are almost certainly pretty grim.

And that is before we even think about the entrance of Sweden.....




Centuur -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/7/2018 2:09:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Any war with Norway/Sweden would have had repercussions with the USA, which was far more important than any short term disruption of the iron ore trade.

warspite1

One of the great what-ifs....

If the British had launched R4 what would the Norwegians have done? The obvious conclusion is they would have gone to war with the Western Allies and invited the Germans in. But maybe not. Was Norway really going to put herself on the 'wrong' side or would the government make diplomatic grumblings while at the same time accepting - albeit it reluctantly - the landing of troops?

Regardless of whether the latter came about or not, with key ports occupied Weserubung, if attempted, would be a different proposition - and would be most interesting if the Allies got there just 24 hours earlier and Weserubung proceeded as planned (the ships already being at sea). In such a scenario the Germans could well have been dealt a very bloody nose at Narvik, Bergen and Trondheim.

None of the above would alter the fact that the Western Allied troops deployed (in number and equipment) were woefully inadequate, and the Germans would take Oslo and southern Norway pretty quickly, but already the complexion of the campaign has altered dramatically and German losses are almost certainly pretty grim.

And that is before we even think about the entrance of Sweden.....



To me, it sounds strange that there would have been a chance for the Norwegians to simply join the Allies, if they had been attacked by them first. That's wishfull thinking, I believe. The Norwegian people were (and still are) very proud where there own independence was concerned. Don't forget: Norway was part of Denmark for a very, very long time and didn't gain independence until 1905.

It's not the same as with the Baltic States, where there wasn't much support for the Germans even after they "liberated" those countries. The people there didn't forget who sold them to the Soviets first.
Norway didn't have such a thing happening to them, so they would join the Axis states if they had been attacked first...




brian brian -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/7/2018 2:46:53 PM)

I think the newer edition improves the rules situation quite a bit and introduces a key element - a die roll. War lets Chance out of Pandora’s Box and a minor decision by even a single soldier can have unforeseen consequences. One bomb skipping on to the wrong target, from either side, and major headlines can be generated. Change British H-Hour just a day or two (who “moves first” this turn?) and maybe the Blucher is entering Oslo fjord the same dawn as the Royal Navy enters Bergen fjord. Then what happens?




warspite1 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/7/2018 4:27:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Any war with Norway/Sweden would have had repercussions with the USA, which was far more important than any short term disruption of the iron ore trade.

warspite1

One of the great what-ifs....

If the British had launched R4 what would the Norwegians have done? The obvious conclusion is they would have gone to war with the Western Allies and invited the Germans in. But maybe not. Was Norway really going to put herself on the 'wrong' side or would the government make diplomatic grumblings while at the same time accepting - albeit it reluctantly - the landing of troops?

Regardless of whether the latter came about or not, with key ports occupied Weserubung, if attempted, would be a different proposition - and would be most interesting if the Allies got there just 24 hours earlier and Weserubung proceeded as planned (the ships already being at sea). In such a scenario the Germans could well have been dealt a very bloody nose at Narvik, Bergen and Trondheim.

None of the above would alter the fact that the Western Allied troops deployed (in number and equipment) were woefully inadequate, and the Germans would take Oslo and southern Norway pretty quickly, but already the complexion of the campaign has altered dramatically and German losses are almost certainly pretty grim.

And that is before we even think about the entrance of Sweden.....



To me, it sounds strange that there would have been a chance for the Norwegians to simply join the Allies, if they had been attacked by them first. That's wishfull thinking, I believe. The Norwegian people were (and still are) very proud where there own independence was concerned. Don't forget: Norway was part of Denmark for a very, very long time and didn't gain independence until 1905.

It's not the same as with the Baltic States, where there wasn't much support for the Germans even after they "liberated" those countries. The people there didn't forget who sold them to the Soviets first.
Norway didn't have such a thing happening to them, so they would join the Axis states if they had been attacked first...
warspite1

It might be a language thing so apologies if I have the gist of what you are trying to say wrong.

First and foremost I don't understand 'wishful thinking'. There is no wishful thinking on my part other than a) a wish that the whole brainless idea (R4) had never been contemplated, b) the Norwegians had properly defended their country by using the tools they had available (although fully understand why that was not the case - and they were hardly alone in the 'not being prepared' department....).

'so they would join the Axis states if they had been attacked first' I don't see how you can say that in a matter of fact way. None of us know. We can guess at what might have happened and put forward arguments in support of our views - but none of us know.

'Simply join the Allies'. Again I am not sure what this means. It would not be a case of simply doing anything. In the situation outlined, matters would be very confused and so action to be taken would likely be far from straightforward. My thinking - which was simply putting forward a possible scenario - is that:

a) The Germans (in Nazi form) were not natural bedfellows for the Norwegians. There was only minor support for the nonentity that was Vidkun Quisling
b) At the time the British would have been putting R4 into effect, the Norwegian government was already aware of intelligence coming from Sweden about German plans.
c) This knowledge and the unease it caused would have been compounded by the fact that German soldiers, that were being fished out of the sea at this time, were claiming they were on their way to Bergen.
d) Norwegian anger at the Western Allies landing in Norwegian ports (and adopting as peaceful a manner as possible while so doing) would not have had long to ferment by the time the German navy came tearing up the Oslofjord all guns blazing. Why would the Norwegians necessarily have hatred only for the Western Allies and be prepared to fall into bed with the Nazis just because the former beat the latter to 'invasion' by a few hours?
e) If, before a shooting war had developed with Germany, there had been large-scale Western Allied/Norwegian clashes then it would make the Norwegians less likely to co-operate with the Allies and may have driven them into the arms of the Nazis - but that would be by no means certain.
f) I don't get any comparison between the Baltic States and Norway and certainly wouldn't use Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania to support any theories as to what the Norwegians may or may not have done.

For a country like Norway, throwing their lot in with Adolf Hitler's regime would not have been a certainty in my view even if the Western Allies had just landed in the country.





Centuur -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/7/2018 5:38:56 PM)

I don't agree at all. I think you should do some reading on the Norwegian-British relations before WW II. Here is a pretty good assessment on how things were standing at the time...

https://www.quora.com/In-WWII-why-was-Norways-resistance-to-Germany-so-small-before-and-after-the-Germans-arrived-in-Norway




warspite1 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/7/2018 6:30:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I don't agree at all. I think you should do some reading on the Norwegian-British relations before WW II. Here is a pretty good assessment on how things were standing at the time...

https://www.quora.com/In-WWII-why-was-Norways-resistance-to-Germany-so-small-before-and-after-the-Germans-arrived-in-Norway
warspite1

Well I do read about WWII and the pre-war years - avidly - so if I am wrong then its not for want of reading I assure you.

The article provided is a tad dubious - and not to mention appalling spelling which makes one wonder about its veracity. It mentions British breaches of neutrality in 1939 - but does not mention German breaches pre-April 1940 - strange. I couldn't see mention in the pre-war section of the Norwegian Government's agreement to charter ships to Britain. Why would that be given the hatred of the British? You might suggest a purely economic motive, but why risk sovereignty by antagonising Germany?

I don't know what the Napolionic Wars were [;)] but to raise events of 1815 when talking about the Nazi state of 1939 and its very real threat to world order, appears to be be a tad hopeful.

Edit: Started reading the rest of the article. Oh dear...."Many were members of the Nasjonal Samling".... Many? Good grief [8|]

Strange that the events pre-1815 were apparently remembered (when a church collection box was stolen - Arrgghh the horror) but not the large loss of life and shipping caused by German's unrestricted submarine war in World War I?? "Kaiser Wilhelm spent his holidays in Norwegian fjords, and was a friend of the Norwegian people" - and the loss in WWI didn't alter that?

".....So unlike the attitudes to the English, Many Norwegians were positive towards Germans" But he'd previously said. "Norwegian feelings towards both great powers were negative. And the British were hated about as much as the Germans by the Norwegian people". So which is it? The author appears confused..

Woeful article....




Centuur -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/8/2018 4:02:53 PM)

Let's say that we disagree on this one. I really think that there is no way the Norwegians would join the Allies when the British would have attacked first.




warspite1 -> RE: An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically (10/8/2018 4:24:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Let's say that we disagree on this one. I really think that there is no way the Norwegians would join the Allies when the British would have attacked first.
warspite1

Sure but to be crystal clear, I am not saying the British 'attack' in the conventional sense.




Page: <<   < prev  74 75 76 77 [78]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0703125