Witness to World War 2.

Post descriptions of your brilliant successes and unfortunate demises.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

Introduction.
The story of this war will be told through first-hand accounts of front-line combatants, correspondents and rear area key command / staff officers. Where available, relevant documents will be provided to supplement these first-hand accounts. Because of the sensitivity of the sources used, summaries of these witness accounts will not be presented impulse by impulse, or even turn by turn, but will be published at critical points. That is, the day to day, or battle to battle, minutia will be skipped.

National Will.

There are three factions at play, which are: (1) Fascist (Germany, Italy & Japan), (2) Democracies (Great Britain, France, USA and Nationalist Chinese) and (3) Communist (USSR and Communist Chinese). The Fascist and Communist are either controlled by dictators (Germany, Italy, USSR, and Communist Chinese) or run by the military (Imperial Japan). The will of these dictators is the national will of their respective countries and in that regard all they need to concern themselves with is not messing up so badly that they’re ousted by coup. Now ousted in this context is a euphuism for assassination. In contrast, for the leaders of the Democracies, national will places significant constraints on how they conduct the war. If national will turns against these leaders then that usually spells doom for their political or military careers. However, unlike the Fascist and Communist this doom is only to their careers and not to the actual persons who would be “retired” off to obscure civilian life.

USA – is just coming out of the depression and the majority of Americans want no part of another war fought in Europe. With respect to the Japan and the Pacific, again a majority of Americans could care less what’s going on in Asia and, furthermore, would have trouble even finding on a map key Pacific islands and Asian cities. The average US citizen just wants to be left alone and take advantage of the opportunity to pursue the “American Dream”. However, President Roosevelt and senior military leaders such as Admiral Ernest King and General George Marshall recognize the Nazi and Imperial Japanese threat to US interests and freedoms. The US navy is woefully unprepared and needs to be both modernized and increased in size in order to fight a two ocean war (Pacific and Atlantic). Also, though technically neutral, the US is pro Great Britain, France and Nationalist Chinese. Well, the majority of the US civilian and military leaders are, most importantly, FDR, King and Marshall are. Though it would be fair to say that the majority of American are also pro these countries if they take time to think about it. Thus, the US will provide what support it can to these countries constrained by the (current) isolationist attitude of most Americans.

France and Great Britain – lost or damaged an entire generation of men in their victory over Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the Great War. The leaders of these two nations view it as obscene what that war did to that generation and, will at almost any cost, avoid another war in Europe. Their guarantee to Poland is halfhearted at best and their hope, if such a guarantee must be honored, is to avoid a ground war with Germany fought (again) over the Great War battlefields in Western Europe. Their desire is fight Germany on the high seas, in the air or in proxy in places far away from Western Europe and with the objective of ending any such war before it really begins even if that means sacrificing Poland.

USSR – Joseph Stalin’s will is USSR’s national will. His will is to reclaim territory lost during the Great War, build a buffer between Mother Russia and Germany and maximize military production and output. Though the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (i.e., Nazi-Soviet Pact) was just signed and Hitler has tacitly given Stalin permission to take Eastern Poland, the Baltic States and Bessarabia, Stalin will proceed cautiously in the acquisitions of these territories. Even though the ink of the Nazi-Soviet pact is still wet, Stalin still holds a great mistrust of Germany’s intentions. In the Middle East, specifically Persia, Stalin plans to take advantage of a newly signed ceasefire agreement with Japan (Molotov-Tojo agreement) after their victory over Japanese forces in the battles of Khalking Gol on the Mongolian-Manchurian border.

Japan – The will of Japan’s military leaders is the will of Japan. And their will is an Asia controlled and led by Japan. With their expansion into Soviet Asia checked at the battles of Khalking Gol and with the signing of a neutrality pact with Stalin, their immediate objectives are to subdue China, acquire necessary resources to maximize production, strengthen and build up their navy, army and air forces and position their self for the “acquisition” of the resource rich areas of the Dutch East Indies, Burma and India. The only thorn in their side is their dependency of oil and raw materials from the US and the growing hostility from the US to their noble and justified expansions in Asia.

Italy – To a certain extent Mussolini’s will is Italy’s will and his will is to reestablish the Great Roman empire but on the cheap. This means campaigns that avoid direct conflict with Great Britain, France and the USSR. Though, he is more than willing to snatch up the scraps from any of these countries “left over” from any encounters they may have had with Germany. Mussolini is about grabbing what he can and when he can for as little cost as possible.

Germany – Hitler’s will is Germany’s will. The fuhrer is convinced that Great Britain and France will once again back down when he invades and splits Poland with Stalin. Even if they don’t he knows these two countries don’t have the will to fight a prolong war. Hitler’s will is one of expansion, domination and payback for Germany’s humiliating loss and stab in the back at the conclusion of the Great War. “We may be destroyed but, if we are, we shall drag a world with us – A World in Flames”.
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

Optional Rules (1/3).

Image
Attachments
00OptionalRules.jpg
00OptionalRules.jpg (336.8 KiB) Viewed 283 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

Optional Rules (2/3).

Manually enforced.

Image
Attachments
00OptionalRules2.jpg
00OptionalRules2.jpg (117.72 KiB) Viewed 283 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

Optional Rules (3/3).

Manually enforced.

Image
Attachments
00OptionalRules3.jpg
00OptionalRules3.jpg (175.43 KiB) Viewed 283 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact.

Effective Date Sep/Oct 1939 and manually enforced according to the relevant rules in sections 9.5 Neutrality Pacts (pp 34-36) and 12.2 Entry Markers (p 89) of, "The Rules as Coded." This includes Japan being able to "draw" a entry marker every other turn and the Soviets being able to apply the one entry marker they draw per turn to either the Nazi-Soviet or Japanese-Soviet pact.

Image
Attachments
00Japanes..ityPact.jpg
00Japanes..ityPact.jpg (119.86 KiB) Viewed 283 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

Lend-Lease Air Units.

Image
Attachments
00LendLe..irUnits.jpg
00LendLe..irUnits.jpg (259.27 KiB) Viewed 284 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

Axis Scrapped.

Image
Attachments
00AxisScrapped.jpg
00AxisScrapped.jpg (389.28 KiB) Viewed 284 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

Allied Scrapped.

Image
Attachments
00AlliedScrapped.jpg
00AlliedScrapped.jpg (368.73 KiB) Viewed 283 times
Ronnie
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41373
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Though the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (i.e., Nazi-Soviet Pact) was just signed and Hitler has tacitly given Stalin permission to take Eastern Poland, the Baltic States and Bessarabia, Stalin will proceed cautiously in the acquisitions of these territories. Even though the ink of the Nazi-Soviet pact is still wet, Stalin still holds a great mistrust of Germany’s intentions.
warspite1

How will the Soviet / German / Bessarabia / Romania situation be played out?

The subject of Bessarabia within the Nazi Soviet pact is quite interesting and is perhaps instructive of a) how desperate Hitler was to get a pact signed and b) his attention to detail.

Bessarabia was barely mentioned in the pact – and it was agreed only that the territory would fall in the USSR’s sphere of influence (note: Northern Bukovina was not even mentioned). When Stalin annexed Bessarabia/Northern Bukovina in 1940 Hitler flew into a rage and demanded to see a copy of the Nazi Soviet pact!

Clearly Hitler’s fear was that Stalin would make a move into Romania specifically (and so take the oil Hitler needed) and the Balkans generally (which Hitler saw as being within Germany’s sphere).

(M)WIF allows conditions for a Soviet attack on Romania, but Hitler could not afford that to happen. How will you play this?
As a wise man once asked:

War - What is it good for?
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by brian brian »

Warspite sighting - yay! 1940 Balkans history & the workings of "The Pact", after it was signed, are not well known parts of the war for me, at all. But every little bit adds up to make the whole of a history, and history always echoes still today even. The borders of Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia, and how they intersect the Carpathian mountains have been in flux for a millennia at least - and may be again in the 21st century.


There are a couple interesting options chosen, "Presence of the Enemy" and "Railway Movement Bonus".

Both of them only change things by 1 point - on the dice, or in movement points, and are not always considered consequential during optional rules selection. Using 'Presence' has been routinely debated by WiF players.

But 1 point differences become key swings at the tactical level and can decide who wins or loses a given battle. I hope the Admirals and Army Group Commanders comment on how things might have played out differently without those small +/-1 on their activities.
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Though the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (i.e., Nazi-Soviet Pact) was just signed and Hitler has tacitly given Stalin permission to take Eastern Poland, the Baltic States and Bessarabia, Stalin will proceed cautiously in the acquisitions of these territories. Even though the ink of the Nazi-Soviet pact is still wet, Stalin still holds a great mistrust of Germany’s intentions.
warspite1

How will the Soviet / German / Bessarabia / Romania situation be played out?

The subject of Bessarabia within the Nazi Soviet pact is quite interesting and is perhaps instructive of a) how desperate Hitler was to get a pact signed and b) his attention to detail.

Bessarabia was barely mentioned in the pact – and it was agreed only that the territory would fall in the USSR’s sphere of influence (note: Northern Bukovina was not even mentioned). When Stalin annexed Bessarabia/Northern Bukovina in 1940 Hitler flew into a rage and demanded to see a copy of the Nazi Soviet pact!

Clearly Hitler’s fear was that Stalin would make a move into Romania specifically (and so take the oil Hitler needed) and the Balkans generally (which Hitler saw as being within Germany’s sphere).

(M)WIF allows conditions for a Soviet attack on Romania, but Hitler could not afford that to happen. How will you play this?
Stalin while ruthless is also a patience man. He will immediately move to "liberate" Eastern Poland as is expected by Hitler. However, he will bide his time with respect to Bessarabia, the Baltic States and Persia. Stalin's patience in regards to the Baltic States and Persia will be more to do with US (Ge/It) entry chits and values (i.e., waiting until a number of lower (expected) value 1940's chits are available to minimize the risk of losing higher value 1939 chits). There's a 30% chance that the US will lose a (GE/IT entry) chit when the Soviets claim the Baltic States and a 90% chance of losing one when they invade Persia. It may seem strange that Stalin's actions are constrained by US goodwill (i.e., entry chits), however that goodwill is vital down to road to the Soviets military and maybe even their survival. And as the fate, or survival, of the Soviet Union goes so does Stalin’s.

Now getting to your specific question, which is concerning the planned Soviet acquisition of Bessarabia, Stalin's patience there is driven by the need to avoid war with Romania and the high probability (80%) of losing 2 US Ge/It entry chits. At best (20%), war with Romania will cost 1 entry chit. US chit losses aside, with all his other expansion plans the last thing Stalin wants, or needs, is to have the Red Army tied up in a war with Romania with the real likelihood of quality German peacekeepers rushed in to aid the Romanians. Stalin’s plan to “peacefully” acquire Bessarabia is four pronged, and really simple, but does require patience. The plan is: (1) position an entire Red Army Front on the border with Romania, (2) position Soviet strategic bombers in range of the Ploesti oil fields, (3) delay any claim until Germany is fully engaged with France and Great Britain on the Western Front and (4) wait for fine weather to maximize the risk of Soviet strategic bombers to Hitler’s vital oil fields at Ploesti. The Soviets are able to deploy 8 strategic factors (3 air units) within range of Ploesti which means that during fine weather there is a 20% of knocking out 1 oil point for the turn, 20% of knocking out 2 and a 30% of knocking out 3, and a 10% chance of destroying 1 oil point. It this isn’t enough to convince Hitler to pressure Romania to accept a Soviet demand for Bessarabia then the fact that an entire Red Army Front is sitting on the border ready to destroy and breakthrough surprised Romanian defenders should be.
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Warspite sighting - yay! 1940 Balkans history & the workings of "The Pact", after it was signed, are not well known parts of the war for me, at all. But every little bit adds up to make the whole of a history, and history always echoes still today even. The borders of Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia, and how they intersect the Carpathian mountains have been in flux for a millennia at least - and may be again in the 21st century.


There are a couple interesting options chosen, "Presence of the Enemy" and "Railway Movement Bonus".

Both of them only change things by 1 point - on the dice, or in movement points, and are not always considered consequential during optional rules selection. Using 'Presence' has been routinely debated by WiF players.

But 1 point differences become key swings at the tactical level and can decide who wins or loses a given battle. I hope the Admirals and Army Group Commanders comment on how things might have played out differently without those small +/-1 on their activities.
"Presence of the Enemy" for me adds more realism to the naval aspects of the game, mainly in the Pacific but to a lesser, though critical, extent to the Atlantic. This optional rule significantly reduces the ability of one to send surface naval forces across, and through, one or more enemy (only) controlled sea areas and raid vital enemy resource and supply convoys. With this rule in place one has to rely more on their submarine fleet to perform this function. This rule also places a significance on maintaining a naval presence in sea areas one wishes to perform operations in or through. And to me this seems to result in more, and smaller, naval battles for control of those areas versus both sides keeping and operating their fleets as one big mass. This is also why I like to use "Limited Overseas Supply" in conjunction with this rule. It just feels that the naval portion of the game plays out more realistically.

"Railway Movement Bonus" - I know this rules has a lot of opponents. I've certainly read and considered their reasons for their opposition. I have played both with and without this rule. I just like the additional mobility and breakthrough potential this rule adds. Also, I like the fact that Germany during fine or snow weather can effectively conquer Denmark and "lock any" any potential intervention by the British or French with 3 divisions/corps (one 5/6 mover and two 3/4 movers). Historically the conquest of Denmark was accomplished by two Germany divisions and one brigade in 6-hours. I believe this optional rule makes this "possible" in game terms.
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

Wif Chart

Two things that I'm doing which is adding both to my enjoyment of playing the game and to the understanding of (M)WiF rules/mechanics is:

(1) Physically working through the (M)WiF combat, weather, US entry and neutrality pact calculations and tables as if I were playing the game with cardboard and paper instead of on the computer.

Image
Attachments
00WiFTable.jpg
00WiFTable.jpg (849.68 KiB) Viewed 286 times
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

10D Dice

(2) Physically rolling the dice and entering the results.

For fractional odds, I'll randomly choose three different colored dice (e.g., purple, green, red) and roll them to produce a fractional number between 0.000 and 0.999. The three colored dice will be randomly chosen each combat.

For pact chits and the sort, I'll randomly choose four colored dice (e.g., blue, orange, yellow, green) and roll them to produce a factional number between 0.0001 and 1.0000 (all zeros = 1). I then multiply that fractional number by the maximum entry value (e.g., 3017 in 1939 and 365 in 1940 for pact chits) requested by MWiF (e.g., 0-3017, 0-365). I'll then round that number off to give the number that I enter.

I do have some dice rolling protocol that I follow.
(A) If the color of the dice don't match EXACTLY the color specified per-roll then it's a complete re-roll using the specified colors. For example if blue, orange, yellow, green are specified but by mistake I roll blue, red, yellow and green then that roll is void and another roll using the correct colors is made.
(B) A die rolled has to remain on the "table" to count. Any die that falls to the floor must be re-rolled. However, any die that didn't, even if part of a color sequence, are not. For example if rolling purple, green, red for fractional odds and the green and red dice fall on the floor. Only those two dice are re-rolled. The purple die that remained on the table isn't and counts as rolled initially.
(C) The color sequence used is changed up often (even combat to combat) and are chosen randomly from the ten 10-side dice pack that I currently have.

Image
Attachments
0010SidedDice.jpg
0010SidedDice.jpg (149.08 KiB) Viewed 283 times
Ronnie
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by brian brian »

the 3 dice / 3 digit approach to fractionals is an MWiF construct.

playing Face-to-Face, we do roll 3 dice at once - but 2 are the same color (the base result) and the 3rd is off-color. the 3rd die is for the fractional, calculated only out to the first decimal place in the final odds. one land combat, one physical roll of the dice - not 2 - is easier.

I will never go back to 1d10 land combat, but 2d10 + fractionals does have it's certain effect on the game to a point that some House Rule further tweaks to handling the fractional. But the original Rule As Written is to just use the first decimal place only.
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by brian brian »

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
Historically the conquest of Denmark was accomplished by two Germany divisions and one brigade in 6-hours. I believe this optional rule makes this "possible" in game terms.

sure, but the historical CW had troops loaded to intervene in Norway at that precise point in time, with zero plans to risk crossing the North Sea with loaded troop transports, which almost certainly would not have ended well for some portion of the embarked infantry. I doubt OKH planning in history seriously considered the possibility of British troops arriving in Denmark.

the WiF Germans can also conquer Denmark with a minimal force if they wish, and the WiF British can simply ignore their ability to exploit the game system with a 50% chance of landing some quite expensive troops with no losses, or a 100% chance of doing that, in most games. If you are playing solitaire, you don't really need to play one side doing extra to avoid a rules system exploit you don't agree with, as long as you don't forget the possibility in your next game against another person.

or then the WiF British could smack the German troops set-up on the border with Denmark with Surprise Impulse double roll Ground Strikes and quite possibly wreck even a 3 unit German invasion of Denmark. I learned that one from Mr. Warspite. Fight the enemy, fight them.


If you really want to up the historical nature of the 2 Scandinavian Neutrals historically invaded, you could just use the rules for them from Collector's Edition, and do so 'manually', easy enough. then you will almost certainly see a quite simple 1940 German invasion of Denmark just to secure that flank for the long term, timed for minimal possible USE impact. & in Norway, a range of political outcomes is a thornier strategic question for both sides.



edit: should read "OKW planning" - Weserubung was an OKW led campaign, the first by Hitler's attempt at a Combined Joint Chiefs of Staff, another basically poor military decision, as he then had essentially 2 General Staffs as OKW couldn't quite give orders to OKH.
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: brian brian

the 3 dice / 3 digit approach to fractionals is an MWiF construct.

playing Face-to-Face, we do roll 3 dice at once - but 2 are the same color (the base result) and the 3rd is off-color. the 3rd die is for the fractional, calculated only out to the first decimal place in the final odds. one land combat, one physical roll of the dice - not 2 - is easier.

I will never go back to 1d10 land combat, but 2d10 + fractionals does have it's certain effect on the game to a point that some House Rule further tweaks to handling the fractional. But the original Rule As Written is to just use the first decimal place only.
Though I've never played the table top game or used that concept for fractionals, I must confess that I like the way MWiF does it because it feels to me that every factor added to a land combat (albeit, air or naval support) can make a difference to the outcome. In major league baseball there's a big difference between a 0.299 hitter and a 0.200 hitter. The 0.299 hitter stays in the majors and gets a big contract. The 0.200 hitter gets sent down to the minors and makes far less. If batting averages were calculated only out to the first decimal place a 0.299 and 0.200 hitters would both be 0.2 hitters.
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 24028
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: brian brian

If you are playing solitaire, you don't really need to play one side doing extra to avoid a rules system exploit you don't agree with, as long as you don't forget the possibility in your next game against another person.
There may be some time in the future (e.g., when retired) when I may wish to venture back into competitive play against another player. A "secondary" objective of my play is to learn and employ sound strategies and tactics that will (hopefully) hold up into competitive play against an equally talented player as me. Besides, I see the potential for a British intervention into Denmark if the Germans do not lock out the allies on their invasion impulse to be a historically believable reaction. For me the precedence is the ill fated British and French intervention in Norway.
ORIGINAL: brian brian

or then the WiF British could smack the German troops set-up on the border with Denmark with Surprise Impulse double roll Ground Strikes and quite possibly wreck even a 3 unit German invasion of Denmark. I learned that one from Mr. Warspite. Fight the enemy, fight them.
I think you might see this too in this game and with some argument made for the "historical validity" of such a strike. [;)]
Ronnie
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by brian brian »

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Though I've never played the table top game or used that concept for fractionals, I must confess that I like the way MWiF does it because it feels to me that every factor added to a land combat (albeit, air or naval support) can make a difference to the outcome. In major league baseball there's a big difference between a 0.299 hitter and a 0.200 hitter. The 0.299 hitter stays in the majors and gets a big contract. The 0.200 hitter gets sent down to the minors and makes far less. If batting averages were calculated only out to the first decimal place a 0.299 and 0.200 hitters would both be 0.2 hitters.

That is precisely where the debate and sometimes a House Rule comes in. Fractional Odds is a wonderful rules construct I will never play without. Gone are the days where some land combats moved an odds level after the successful introduction ("cleared through") of a single early war FTR-bomber counter on one side or the other. And gone are the days where players endlessly re-arranged their corps level units to maximize odds possibilities in every single attack. (Totally unhistorical - jumbling unit "lines of advance" on a whim was one of Hitler's many grave military errors).

Now, in your most important attack, you throw the kitchen sink in to the battle - every factor counts, as it should be. Your best units attack the most important hex. (Though still with some un-historical re-arranging, but then you can just WiFZen the chaos as the real corps actually staying in their same front line positions, but the Army Group level command adding or subtracting divisions or brigades or specialty troops from a given formation, thus changing the factors on the counter at below the scale level of the game, anyway).

But letting every factor count is a decidedly Pro-Attacker option, and is sometimes a reason players don't wish to use 2d10, though they can also just reach that conclusion from experience intuition seeing game results without realizing part of attacker success on 2d10 traces back to Fractional Odds.

"Pro-Attacker" doesn't sound Pro-Axis, or Pro-Allies, as each side spends time being the strategic attacker and strategic defender in the game. But actually Pro-Attacker options are somewhat basically Pro-Axis in that aids to their attacks in the first half of the game, when counter densities are low, have an outsized impact on the strategic position they ultimately achieve, compared to attacks later in the game by the Allies, when counter densities are far higher.

So how many decimal places to use and how to round them get tweaked by some players; some lop off a full 0.5 from the final calculation, automatically, though without dropping it below the .00 needed for the final odds achieved. (thus only fractional totals from 0.51 up might gain you something.)

But I think there are varying approaches to that; perhaps paulderynck could supply some game system historical context on this - examples of other House Rule approaches to this.
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Witness to World War 2.

Post by brian brian »

I agree the WiF CW should contest Denmark strongly (it is just a game, after all), and the Royal Navy is more than nimble enough to do so even with the CW's other possible commitments in areas that aren't necessarily pressured, simultaneously, in every game. But if the Axis are past the Belgian border and at the gates of Cairo or past Oran and it is not even October 1939 yet, mucking around in Denmark is not that wise of an idea.


But in history, I think even the 1939-40 Luftwaffe and U-Boats would have ended any Allied ideas in Denmark rather quickly. The Royal Navy could have still Got It Done - supplying the boots on the ground there - but not without a massive commitment and correspondingly ever escalating losses along the way. And probably so without the Germans even needing to commit the surface ships of the Kriegsmarine - which conversely they absolutely had to do to campaign in Norway, drawing it out to where the Royal Navy could bring it to grips much more on their own terms.
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Report”