• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
rule303

Late War & Alternative/Post WW2 Tech for Really Late Tiers?

77 posts in this topic

14 hours ago, biggles4 said:

Could have the Maus and the Tortoise, just like in Aesop's Battles.

Dont think any of would live long enough for the Maus to make it to the fight to see how it turns out 
LoL

Can you imagine the stress on the drive train turning that thing from a stand still?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the axis need to win within X weeks we need to add some other more realistic and quite balanced changes to resemble the actual WWII:

1. No Tier >1

2. Cut down RAF at the continent to 25% of current unit strength. No spitfires at all but add Gloster Gladiators to the mix. That would resemble the real numbers way better because the UK was not willing to send more and more modern fighters over to the continent to help out the french. At least 75% of the RAF should not be allowed to cross the channel.

3. French Brigade Movement should be considerably slower than that of the german ones. French tactics were focused on a static line defense, not a mobile warfare. This is to no degree modelled in game and is the cause breaktroughs being contained way to easy for the French.

4. French tanks finally get the restricted 1 man turret they had. No aiming while reloading. Switching from the observation copula to the gun view takes times - just like it does to get from the front gunner to the bombardier position in a HE 111. (I don't see why this is not allready the case tbh)

5. Only allied HC and and Squad leaders are allowed to use discord, side chat or any other channel other than "local area chat". No radios for you guys :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2018 at 10:10 AM, vanapo said:

If the axis need to win within X weeks we need to add some other more realistic and quite balanced changes to resemble the actual WWII:

1. No Tier >1

2. Cut down RAF at the continent to 25% of current unit strength. No spitfires at all but add Gloster Gladiators to the mix. That would resemble the real numbers way better because the UK was not willing to send more and more modern fighters over to the continent to help out the french. At least 75% of the RAF should not be allowed to cross the channel.

3. French Brigade Movement should be considerably slower than that of the german ones. French tactics were focused on a static line defense, not a mobile warfare. This is to no degree modelled in game and is the cause breaktroughs being contained way to easy for the French.

4. French tanks finally get the restricted 1 man turret they had. No aiming while reloading. Switching from the observation copula to the gun view takes times - just like it does to get from the front gunner to the bombardier position in a HE 111. (I don't see why this is not allready the case tbh)

5. Only allied HC and and Squad leaders are allowed to use discord, side chat or any other channel other than "local area chat". No radios for you guys :-P

2. T0 begins in May 1940. The history you mention was through June 22, i.e. 43 days, as the Allies were rapidly pushed back. If instead the Allied hold the line, or even push forward, that's a change to history. Similarly, the British fear that shortly they'd have to defend Britain and therefore should not allocate more first line fighters to the Continent would be subject to historical change during the 192 days of 1940 after the historical Armistice, and maybe starting as soon as it's apparent that Germany isn't going to achieve victory in the first 18% of T0, or at all in T0.

3. This is incorrect history. Both sides had leg infantry divisions. Both sides had mostly motorized divisions. The most motorized army was the British, not the Germans. The army with the most horse drawn artillery and supply in its motorized divisions was the Germans, not the French. The two fastest advances near combat of significant forces in 1940 were German 7th Light from the Meuse toward the Channel and French 1st Light Mechanized into Holland. The French had almost the same number of highly mechanized units as the Germans, and the British Army was entirely mechanized.

4. Agreed. Also true for Panzer II. When this is implemented, each army should be re-scaled so that it has the right proportions of light, medium and heavy tanks in front-line units. For German light divisions, this was ~ 50% lights, 50% light-mediums and mediums.

5. Obviously it's impossible to implement any restriction on use of internet or external communications among game players. Aside from that, German radio density varied among unit types, as it did for the French, so for both armies any such restriction should apply more for infantry formations than for armored ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/04/2018 at 4:10 PM, vanapo said:

 

4. French tanks finally get the restricted 1 man turret they had. No aiming while reloading. Switching from the observation copula to the gun view takes times - just like it does to get from the front gunner to the bombardier position in a HE 111. (I don't see why this is not allready the case tbh)

Interesting although we could wonder if axis tanks should have a similar behaviour when not being multicrewed in order to keep a balance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Zebbeee said:

Interesting although we could wonder if axis tanks should have a similar behaviour when not being multicrewed in order to keep a balance?

why? would be a lot simpler to just add time for reloading if certain crew are dead like war thunder does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2018 at 0:38 PM, madrebel said:

why? would be a lot simpler to just add time for reloading if certain crew are dead like war thunder does. 

Any crewman dead, or even no one dead but a full penetration of the fighting compartment, should result in the rest of the crew immediately bailing out. No army, ever, had tankers that would voluntarily stay in a tank that had just taken a fatal hit.

Every WWII tanker in every army always assumed that (1) the penetration they just got had started a fire, and they had a few seconds to get out before the propellant caught and they were burned to death; (2) someone had them targeted and correctly aimed with a weapon that could penetrate them, and the next round would be coming in a few seconds and would go through the ammo storage, starting a propellant fire and burning them to death.

Tankers were very focused on not dying in a burning steel box. It was universally held that you were better off taking your chances against rifle and machine gun fire outside, than inside a burning tank.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2018 at 10:10 AM, vanapo said:

4. French tanks finally get the restricted 1 man turret they had. No aiming while reloading. Switching from the observation copula to the gun view takes times - just like it does to get from the front gunner to the bombardier position in a HE 111. (I don't see why this is not allready the case tbh)

Because the game did not support the proper mechanic for the french turrets.
Same reason why the rear hatch binoc view is somewhat useless as well as the phantom crewman in position 2

Game would only support one gimbal per position (this is why the PZIIc and PZ38(t) move the entire darned turret and gun when trying to use binocs)

You would need the french commander to climb up in the cuppolla, move it
Climb down to the gun, move it and the turret
Open the hatch and move out onto it and move the binocs
That is 3 gimbals on one position, plus multiple position movements and 3 sets of optics
The game could not do that back then when those units were created.

For a long time, the cuppola did not even have use of binocs.

Not sure exactly if it supports it 100% properly now, due to the gimbal limitation
HE-111 only has one gimbal up in the nose.

One way to maybe go about it, working within the existing engine might be
Make gunsight black out during the reload sequence as part of the firing/recoil animation or some such
Still need crew 2 to manage the cuppola, but link 2 and 3 some how so if one dies, both die.
Dont worry about the movement time to go from position 3 to 2, it is semi covered by the delay in opening the shutter which would normally open instantly
and the movement animation used in the HE-111 wont work in this instance because of the gimbals

Then take the PZII and 38(t) and set them up kind of the same
add pos 3 so they can use binocs with out moving the gun around
tie pos 2 and 3 together so if one dies both die.

Both have a loader so no need to blank out the optics

That is no simple thing though, you are basically rebuilding all 5 units, mechanics and 3d art
kind of it's own project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2018 at 9:24 AM, madrebel said:

This fails to seize on the opportunity for alternate reality and also isn’t entirely true.

 

Germany and Italy could have handled the French and BeF for a longer period of time, it would have delayed Barbarossa sure but ... so?

 

Germany was under no significant financial nor industrial pressure - it could have easily handled France. You do recall things like The BoB and Barbarossa right? Where did the man and materials come from for those? They were being built during the BoF. Had the BoF taken longer ... it would have received the stuff already being built.

 

Then there is The BoAtlantic. Here the British empire was in fact on the brink of absolute starvation. If enigma doesn’t get cracked, Britain starves to death. Enigma does get cracked though and the Brits literally sell their soul to the USA and in turn we begin flooding the island with as much material as would fit. 

 

Your desire to place a clock is grossly misplaced. If anything there should be a clock for US entry. If the right criteria aren’t met the US never enters offering to only sell weapons via lend lease. 

 

Germany made many mistakes sure but the French never woulda lasted the way they were operating. Germany absolutely could have starved out the brits no doubt. Wouldn’t even have needed to invade. Had they embraced the Balkan people and flipped them against Russia ... that would have been a different out come too. Still though, zero chance in hell of any form of Fascism out producing the USA and Russia combined. Ultimately Fascism can’t scale and that would have ended it no matter what but your insinuation that the Germans couldn’t handle a protracted engagement in France is kind of silly.

Germany and Italy could have handled the French and BEF for a longer period of time----but not indefinitely, and you should be careful when deciding that delaying Barbarossa would have had no consequences.  Perhaps you would be one of the few who believe that Stalin was going to sit on his hands during the entirety of WWII...

 

I do remember something about there being a Battle of Britain.  It's foggy but I'm pretty sure I've heard of it.  I also remember that the Wermacht's ATGs (and Tanks) were largely ineffective against the tanks they were meeting up with during the BoF, and I also remember the Stuka being withdrawn from the BoF due to decimating losses, and I also have a slight memory that the Royal Air Force decided to save their best stuff for the impending BoB, once they figured the BoF wasn't going their way.  One can only ponder the results of the germans being forced by an effective defensive strategy, into another WW1 style battle of attrition.  If only there was another example of how the german army dealt with battles of attrition in WWII....  Unless, (and I'm just guessing here), their invasion of the Soviet Union failed to achieve a quick victory, thus became a war of attrition that didn't work out so well for the germans, in part because their forces weren't built/designed for that type of campaign, and in part because it amplified the issues of fighting a multi-front war from a relatively small country.

 

Your take on history is interesting, and has a Victory at Sea kind of a vibe----very dramatic and full of places the german would have won if only for the plucky code-breakers...  Note that the Brits may have 'sold their soul' for lend-lease equipment, but had they needed more we would have sent more, (Roosevelt was anti-colonial, but he was no fool).  In your zest for alternate realities, please accept some actual realities:  Britain was never going to lose the Battle of the Atlantic--enigma being broken or not, and whether Germany liked it or not, they were going to fight a 2 front war unless they finished off the French and Brits before Stalin decided his forces were ready to head west, which was not possible.  Germany, as in WWI, was far more at risk of BEING starved out by the Brits, than being able to successfully blockade Britain into submission.  This is especially true once hitler bit the mouth of the soviet supplier of raw materials (oil, grain, etc), by invading the USSR.  While Hitler was smart enough to bargain with the soviets for raw materials (that he would eventually use against the USSR), ponder an alternate reality where the Allies don't botch the defense of France, and Stalin believes even ONE of the any number of advisors who were of the (correct) opinion that the germans were planning on invading the USSR at their earliest opportunity.  In THAT alternate reality, which does not require a lack of codebreakers, or the fanciful 'flipping' of the balkans to being reliable anti-soviet allies, germany suffers the same basic fate it suffered in WWI---becoming less and less effective as war dragged on, and their raw material supplies dwindled.

 

I would agree, whether we are adding a clock or not, that US entry, i.e. having US troops directly involved in the BoF, is ridiculous.  American Equipment, via lend-lease should be the limits of American involvement.  It was an experiment to boost the numbers, and I do not believe it has been successful, so perhaps they should end it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Forcing the axis to "need to win in X hours or fail" kind of goes completely against the "what if" aspect of the game.
It also heavily forces the axis players to adopt the failures of decision makers long since dead.

Does not make for a terribly good what if game, scenario sure, general game no."----Merlin51

 

I disagree, obviously.  Currently, the 'what if' we are left with includes: 

 

What if the germans didn't have to decide what to do about the Maginot Line?

What if the germans didn't have to abide by anything resembling the strategic ideas that their forces were built upon?

What if the French, whose whole strategy was based around defensive weaponry, tactics and the like, had to, with the equipment that was built from that mindset, successfully invade Germany in order to achieve victory?

 

These are 3 fairly large 'what ifs' that act as a constant advantage for the german side.  If we wish to abide in good faith with the 'what if' qualities of the game, perhaps it could be done so more equitably.

 

If the game can handle it, I fully support accurate fire rates for all equipment, French tanks included---(perhaps in lieu of blanking out the gun-sight view during reloading, simply increasing the load time would be an equitable, and doable solution)----someone else posted about that, but it's late and I'm lazy at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2018 at 7:10 AM, vanapo said:

If the axis need to win within X weeks we need to add some other more realistic and quite balanced changes to resemble the actual WWII:

1. No Tier >1

2. Cut down RAF at the continent to 25% of current unit strength. No spitfires at all but add Gloster Gladiators to the mix. That would resemble the real numbers way better because the UK was not willing to send more and more modern fighters over to the continent to help out the french. At least 75% of the RAF should not be allowed to cross the channel.

3. French Brigade Movement should be considerably slower than that of the german ones. French tactics were focused on a static line defense, not a mobile warfare. This is to no degree modelled in game and is the cause breaktroughs being contained way to easy for the French.

4. French tanks finally get the restricted 1 man turret they had. No aiming while reloading. Switching from the observation copula to the gun view takes times - just like it does to get from the front gunner to the bombardier position in a HE 111. (I don't see why this is not allready the case tbh)

5. Only allied HC and and Squad leaders are allowed to use discord, side chat or any other channel other than "local area chat". No radios for you guys :-P

1.  I understand why you would want that, but the longer the BoF lasted, the more equipment from other countries, namely the USA, would have begun to arrive---the French, for example, already had a bunch of P40s on order when BoF started...

 

2.  The RAF decided against fully-committing to BoF because the battle wasn't going well---presumably if the battle didn't go so horribly right off the bat, more of RAF's equipment would have headed to France.

 

3.  There's a difference between tactics and capabilities, first off, so the idea that French troops should move more slowly because their real-world commanders were schmucks is ill-placed.  Additionally, it should be remembered that much of the battle is IN France, and the French Army knew very well how to move troops within its own borders.

 

4.  Not sure if the game can handle that---again, perhaps increasing the re-load time would suffice as an equitable and doable solution to that issue.

 

5.  Ridiculous.  The myth of every german unit having radios is just that.  Having said that I will grant you that their field coms were better than the French, once the battlefield became fluid.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, augetout said:

I would agree, whether we are adding a clock or not, that US entry, i.e. having US troops directly involved in the BoF, is ridiculous.  American Equipment, via lend-lease should be the limits of American involvement.  It was an experiment to boost the numbers, and I do not believe it has been successful, so perhaps they should end it.

Not terribly ridiculous.
The game goes past the BOF, which was over in T0
Historically, if it was done as a scenarion, they would appear on a beach west of cherbourg in T4
But before that, they would be present down in the SE corner of the map, which goes all the way into Italy.
That would not play so well though as axis would magically have another opposing force suddenly appear in what might be a secure area for them
causing them to be forced to fight 2 fronts, one of them being right in their back yard, and being their far back yard, they would not have any units in place
to confront the US forces.

US forces can be done better, with proper tiering, and factories that axis can get to etc, it will just take a bit of time
to get it all worked out. 

Can not say if they boosted numbers, but if you look at the map when the US units enter, the french brigades get quickly tossed
to the way side, so they are at the least popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Not terribly ridiculous.
The game goes past the BOF, which was over in T0
Historically, if it was done as a scenarion, they would appear on a beach west of cherbourg in T4
But before that, they would be present down in the SE corner of the map, which goes all the way into Italy.
That would not play so well though as axis would magically have another opposing force suddenly appear in what might be a secure area for them
causing them to be forced to fight 2 fronts, one of them being right in their back yard, and being their far back yard, they would not have any units in place
to confront the US forces.

US forces can be done better, with proper tiering, and factories that axis can get to etc, it will just take a bit of time
to get it all worked out. 

Can not say if they boosted numbers, but if you look at the map when the US units enter, the french brigades get quickly tossed
to the way side, so they are at the least popular.

We disagree on the degree of ridiculousness, then.

I am sure they are more popular than French units, having run a French unit from before day 1, lol.

Granting that the game goes past the BoF once Tier 0 is finished, more effort is needed in the area of deciding how and when American equipment and units are to arrive, imho.  I would surmise an entire redo of the tier system is probably in order, unless red v blue is the goal, as opposed to staying as close as possible to historical accuracy.

I will greatly enjoy the attempt to make American factories reachable by the germans---they weren't, and shouldn't be---part of the bonus of having an ocean between yourself and your enemy of the moment.  American forces, if we're going to keep them ingame due to their popularity outweighing the straying from history, should be forced to arrive at whatever French-held ports are available on the map---this would present yet another offensive option to the german side, i.e. concentrating on taking as many ports as possible before Uncle Sam arrives, to limit/slow the effects of US 'entry'.

If/when the Americans 'arrive' in the BoF, I can assure you that the germans would already be involved in a 2 front war, as Stalin planned on moving against Germany in '42, once his forces were 'ready'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, augetout said:

I will greatly enjoy the attempt to make American factories reachable by the germans---they weren't, and shouldn't be

They are, and should be, in that the factories in the US did not have Star Trek teleporter systems
and so the equipment had to be shipped and offloaded.

One does not have to attack detroit to stop Ford from Delivering to the western dealership
Just attack the rail line and highway through Montana.

2 hours ago, augetout said:

I would surmise an entire redo of the tier system is probably in order

There is no tier system for the US
Hence they appear and T3 remains indefinitely and becomes a hodgepodge of tier 3 and 4 stuff.
As Ohm said in another thread, they have to be reworked so they function just like france england and germany
and have tiers and production and training ground etc.

2 hours ago, augetout said:

If/when the Americans 'arrive' in the BoF, I can assure you that the germans would already be involved in a 2 front war, as Stalin planned on moving against Germany in '42, once his forces were 'ready'.

That is a scenario, where Axis is forced to an assumed role of the doomed.
I dont think the players would much enjoy knowing that no matter how well you do, on X day a giant army is going to appear behind you
and you have no say so about it and can do nothing to change it and better hurry and rush your forces across to the other side of the map
quick before they drive up your behinds.

In April 1940 axis forces stormed unexpected through the Ardennes forest, bypassing the Maginot Line and quickly pushing the French back to the battle lines
roughly portrayed at the campaign start (adjusted for available terrain etc)
And thus ends entirely Military Tactical and Strategic history.
The entire game from that point is "What If" alternate history dictated by players actions, with the only hard restriction to history being production/arrival time lines.

The US might enter at french ports
They might also find there are no French ports and have to land in Scotland
Or they could enter and find that the french have swept the axis from the continent and have them bottled up below the alps in northern Italy and Berlin is French
but that the Axis hold and maintain all of the UK and are serving schnitzel in London.

And all of it would be the doing of the players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The challenge with making French ports--used by the French to import war goods, or allocated to the British to support the BEF, or later allocated to US forces--attackable by the Germans is that those parts were predominantly far to the west, or even on the Bay of Biscay or Mediterranean coasts. All such ports were a very long way out of range of the longest-range German aircraft. German naval interdiction attempts against such French ports were almost entirely ineffective due to the fact that the French and their allies had vastly more military power in those areas than any German interdiction units that could get there.

This map shows the ports used by the British, and what was moved through them.

UK-NWE-Flanders-i_zpsg1bjwulr.jpg

The Channel ports were only used until early 1939 for railcar ferries. Dover-Boulogne service continued into 1940 only for transport of German POWs to England. The Germans of course were informed and did not attack those ships. Nothing else was moved through the Channel ports, for the simple reason that the Germans could attack them and the British were not stupid.

Hospital ships used Dieppe. They also were not attacked.

Some ammo came into Fecamp, though most was moved through ports to the west. The closest port to the front with significant military-force relevance was Le Havre. And, most heavy movements by the British were through Cherbourg, St. Malo, Brest and St. Nazaire. 

The upshot of this is, French supply interdiction by the Germans at the ports just wasn't a possibility.

Interdiction at railhead-supply-bases OTOH was possible. The French town of Arras figures prominently in 1940 history. The reason why there were British HQ units there to be initially routed by Rommel's 7th Light Division, and the British and French thought it so important to re-capture the town, is that Arras was the British forward railhead and the primary supply dump for all BEF activity on the Continent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2018 at 3:10 AM, augetout said:

"Forcing the axis to "need to win in X hours or fail" kind of goes completely against the "what if" aspect of the game.
It also heavily forces the axis players to adopt the failures of decision makers long since dead.

Does not make for a terribly good what if game, scenario sure, general game no."----Merlin51

 

I disagree, obviously.  Currently, the 'what if' we are left with includes: 

 

What if the germans didn't have to decide what to do about the Maginot Line?

What if the germans didn't have to abide by anything resembling the strategic ideas that their forces were built upon?

What if the French, whose whole strategy was based around defensive weaponry, tactics and the like, had to, with the equipment that was built from that mindset, successfully invade Germany in order to achieve victory?

 

These are 3 fairly large 'what ifs' that act as a constant advantage for the german side.  If we wish to abide in good faith with the 'what if' qualities of the game, perhaps it could be done so more equitably.

 

If the game can handle it, I fully support accurate fire rates for all equipment, French tanks included---(perhaps in lieu of blanking out the gun-sight view during reloading, simply increasing the load time would be an equitable, and doable solution)----someone else posted about that, but it's late and I'm lazy at the moment.

Some good ideas here.

Another one--- The French had more tanks than the Germans in 1940, but they spread them out across the front in small packets-  for defensive purposes. 

What if the French, after seeing the events in Poland, had grouped their tanks up into more armoured divisions, giving them 7 or 8  instead of only 3?  (The 4th Armoured Div was activated after the German attack under De Gaulle, but was just a hodgepodge of subunits)

Also, the french did not have radios in their tanks,making command and control difficult.  What if the French had radios in their tanks too?

The French went into WW2 planning to fight it like WW1.  What if a Charles de Gaulle, an interwar armoured warfare advocate, had risen to higher rank before the war?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merlin, I'll thank you not to presume that I need a history lesson from you.  I have treated you with respect and deserve the same in return.

 

If you wish to make American supply routes (across the atlantic) attackable by german forces, by what method would prefer to do that?  The air assets that unless the campaign is finished cannot reach far enough into the atlantic to matter?  Would you prefer to utilize the U-boat assets that by the time of American entry into WWII were well en route to being controlled, and soon thereafter eliminated as a significant threat?  Making the ports destroyable is an option, but the USA has the capability to land troops and equipment anywhere there's a beach, so that might end up being an exercise in futility (for the germans).  Or will require another addition to the 'what if' portion of the game to ensure that the game is fun for german players?

 

I get that the entire game is a 'what if' scenario of sorts.  Your idea that putting a time constraint on the germans somehow stacks the deck against them may be accurate, but ignores that doing otherwise has stacked the deck against the Allies.  In essence, the Allied players have, for the entire tenure of this game, put up with victory conditions that, for the most part, our equipment was not designed for.  In the bargain, the german side doesn't have to deal with the Maginot line, the very real threat of the USSR heading west, and in order to achieve victory, they are afforded the ability to use equipment designed specifically for that task, and even if they botch a significant portion of their chosen strategy, have the luxury of knowing that when they figure out what to do, their equipment will still be well-suited for the task, while the 'enemy' equipment is not.

 

All that in addition to, in a thread where someone is asking for additional equipment for the later tiers, and providing some evidence of its validity, an alternative set of ideas prompts you to assume the role of history teacher bent on ensuring that the only way forward is to continue an alternate version of history that stacks the deck in favor of 'fun for the german player'?

 

I am in full agreement that the players should determine the outcome.  I would, however, prefer the list of possible outcomes to be increased via an increased use of historical accuracy, as opposed to the current paradigm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, augetout said:

If you wish to make American supply routes (across the atlantic) attackable by german forces, by what method would prefer to do that?  The air assets that unless the campaign is finished cannot reach far enough into the atlantic to matter?  Would you prefer to utilize the U-boat assets that by the time of American entry into WWII were well en route to being controlled, and soon thereafter eliminated as a significant threat?  Making the ports destroyable is an option, but the USA has the capability to land troops and equipment anywhere there's a beach, so that might end up being an exercise in futility (for the germans).  Or will require another addition to the 'what if' portion of the game to ensure that the game is fun for german players?

Well, there are other bombers that the axis could use.
They dont have them yet, but the US does not have a supply base to attack yet either.

U boats could be an interesting possibility being that the demise of the wolfpacks would be entirely up to the players.

US troops could land on a beach yes, but if it isnt a friendly beach, it could be as futile for them as it might be the axis.
And axis may or may not find themselves as decimated in air and naval as they were in real life by that time

1 hour ago, augetout said:

In the bargain, the german side doesn't have to deal with the Maginot line

For now, because it is not in game, and there is not really much for the axis side to back up against.
That is not permanent though.
When there is suitable territory in the right areas, the campaign start could be re-evaluated and backed up to an earlier point
and let them open at the initial attack.

Have to work with the territory we have at the moment, but that is not forever.

Russia would most likely be a separate eastern europe theater, same with NA
Not totally independent, but not directly in the BOF theater.
But theaters can effect eachother

That is not life like, but managing that kind of operation is beyond the capability of most normal human beings (look how bad the real german high command and leader botched it)
it isn't really fun unless it is being played on a macro scale as a strat game but would probably get unfun real fast when you zoom in to a micro scale tactical level and are trying to manage it all just to play.

I doubt we would find many players who would even want to try managing it, you might maybe, you may even be good at it but
i can tell you right off, i would fail mega miserably, not even enough hours in the day and i definitely would not enjoy it.
Manage the ongoings in western europe, eastern europe, north africa and the mediterranean and try not to screw it up to where all
the players just want to log off? Yea, i'd fail

2 hours ago, augetout said:

All that in addition to, in a thread where someone is asking for additional equipment for the later tiers, and providing some evidence of its validity, an alternative set of ideas prompts you to assume the role of history teacher bent on ensuring that the only way forward is to continue an alternate version of history that stacks the deck in favor of 'fun for the german player'?

Where exactly do you see me saying anything about not building later tier equipment?
Or anything about stacking the deck or disrespecting you or whatever it is that you are unhappy about?
Or history lesson for that matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2018 at 11:57 PM, augetout said:

and you should be careful when deciding that delaying Barbarossa would have had no consequences.  Perhaps you would be one of the few who believe that Stalin was going to sit on his hands during the entirety of WWII...

Stalin needed to be the victim. No way he would have had the average person's support in an offensive as The Soviet "Union" was on the brink of civil war courtesy of the mass starvation that occurred a few years earlier. 

Even then the Red Army got absolutely crushed early on. They weren't ready or capable of mounting an offensive. It took winter, incredible land mass, and the cracking of Enigma in order to reverse the Soviet's fortunes. All while the Germans were partly occupied in Africa.

 

Not saying the Germans could have defeated the US and Russia but you're just f'n high if you think they weren't willing and capable of handling both the Brits and the French. They did in fact handle one of them and had the Brits a week or two from starvation. 

 

yet you claim they couldn't have sustained it ... ok. if Enigma doesn't get cracked when it gets cracked the Brits starve to death. Even selling their soul to the US wouldn't have prevented that and the radar good enough to spot periscopes was still many months away. Things woulda got really real on the Isle. Thankfully they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, augetout said:

that by the time of American entry into WWII were well en route to being controlled, and soon thereafter eliminated as a significant threat?

this just isn't the case.  the day before enigma was cracked the uboats were dominant. the day after, not so. better radar sealed that deal for good but it was enigma being cracked - something this game may never model - that did in the uboats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, madrebel said:

Stalin needed to be the victim. No way he would have had the average person's support in an offensive as The Soviet "Union" was on the brink of civil war courtesy of the mass starvation that occurred a few years earlier. 

Even then the Red Army got absolutely crushed early on. They weren't ready or capable of mounting an offensive. It took winter, incredible land mass, and the cracking of Enigma in order to reverse the Soviet's fortunes. All while the Germans were partly occupied in Africa.

 

Not saying the Germans could have defeated the US and Russia but you're just f'n high if you think they weren't willing and capable of handling both the Brits and the French. They did in fact handle one of them and had the Brits a week or two from starvation. 

 

yet you claim they couldn't have sustained it ... ok. if Enigma doesn't get cracked when it gets cracked the Brits starve to death. Even selling their soul to the US wouldn't have prevented that and the radar good enough to spot periscopes was still many months away. Things woulda got really real on the Isle. Thankfully they didn't.

I do not claim to be an expert on the Soviet theater.  In the relatively low amounts of research I have done over the past few years, the consensus I gathered was that Stalin fully planned on heading west once his troops and equipment were up to the task.  If your research shows that Stalin 'needed to be the victim', it comes from different sources that I would be interested in reading.

 

The Red Army did take a beating early on in Barbarossa, but aside from the surprise nature of the attack, you are again looking at results from a narrow viewpoint, failing to realize that the Soviets too had severe issues with command and control combined with poor decisions.  They did mount local offensives, however, some of which were very costly to the germans in men and materiel, which in a battle/war of attrition as preferred by those who have more troops and equipment (the Soviets), and had ripple effects that ended up with the germans stalling outside of Moscow.  You say 'it took winter...', while I would say the germans failed to prepare for winter due to underestimating their foe.  I can't disagree with the land mass point, but again, it's not like the germans didn't have maps before Barbarossa started---this is again an instance of the germans underestimating their foe (or at the very least the task ahead).  I believe you put too much weight into the cracking of Enigma.  The cracking of Enigma quickened the pace of germany's defeat in the battle of the atlantic.  It was a battle they were going to lose, though, whether enigma was cracked or not.  They could not sustain their losses as well as the Allies could sustain theirs.  

 

I assure you I am quite un-high in my conclusion that the germans could not have sustained their war efforts had they bogged down.  They handled the French in large part due to errors on the part of Allied forces-----that shouldn't be modeled into the game, though, correct?  Players should determine the outcome.  Germany being bogged down in France would have significant effects on the rest of germany's campaigns, and on their ability to maintain their war effort.  Your worries about the battle of the atlantic are made largely moot by the lack of U-boat bases in an unconquered France.

 

I would invite you to run a few simulations on Hearts of Iron, (probably the best ever grand scale wwii game/simulation) where the germans have to deal with not walking through France.  I believe you would find it interesting, and in direct opposition to your current beliefs.

 

When the germans bogged down in the Soviet Union, the clock started ticking on their eventual defeat. 

 

I do not believe the Brits would have faced starvation, regardless of the cracking of Enigma.  Roosevelt/USA would not have allowed it to happen, British soul-selling aside.  Had the situation been so dire, it probably would have quickened American entry into the war, as it would have been American ships bringing food to Britain, and thus American ships being sent to the bottom of the Atlantic by U-Boats.  U-boats who soon thereafter would need to operate only where American air assets could not reach. 

 

American entry into the war sealed Germany's fate.  Enigma or no Enigma, the germans were never going to be able to keep pace with American production, just as they failed to keep pace with Soviet production. 

 

Having said all of that, one of the BEST parts of this game has been where and when the campaign was chosen to reside.  The Battle of France in the real war was a route, but it wasn't a route because the germans had more or better equipment, because in essence they didn't have more or better equipment.  Best  air to air fighter involved in the Battle of France?  It isn't the 109.  Best tank involved in the Bof?  It isn't a german tank.  Most mobile forces?  Ironically it isn't the germans---the Brits were more motorized than the germans.  Did the germans have the best anti-tank weaponry?  If not for Rommel feeling the need to improvise due to his other atg assets being ineffective, who knows how long it would have taken the germans to realize that the 88 was so effective in that role?  Did the germans have more tanks?  Nope.  One could argue they had more 'modern' tanks, but that would include a slew of german tanks that weren't really capable of going tank to tank in battle, like the PzII, etc.  Did they have more troops?  Once the French were fully mobilized, they weren't going to---another reason the germans needed to be quick in order to achieve victory.

 

The battle's outcome, and especially the speed of it all, was due to the tactical brilliance of the german commanders involved combined with the utter bungling on the part of the Allies.  The original 'what if' that this game deals with is:  what would happen if the Allies DIDN'T completely botch their defensive efforts?  Unfortunately, though, (in my opinion), the game fails to reward the Allied side for doing what it was designed to do, i.e. hold against german attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, augetout said:

If not for Rommel feeling the need to improvise due to his other atg assets being ineffective, who knows how long it would have taken the germans to realize that the 88 was so effective in that role? 

A detail: dual use of the FlaK 18 family was well known to the Germans from experience in Spain.

Also, in fact the 88s were mostly useless at Arras, due to their Luftwaffe crews having set up on open ground and being scared of British machine gun fire from the advancing tanks. Rommel *wanted* them to man their guns, but he was mostly ineffective at that. Per the German battle diary, the actual AT gamesaver was an artillery junior lieutenant who on his own initiative moved his battery of 105s to the edge of town, which happened to be the British flank, and had his gunners load AP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, augetout said:

When the germans bogged down in the Soviet Union, the clock started ticking on their eventual defeat. 

And when did this bogging down really happen? It wasn't until after Prescott Bush's UBC bank was shut down that the [censored] war machine ground to a halt. This is a key piece you're missing. The US wasn't in a hurry to get into war because actors within the US were funding/enabling the [censored] war machine (Bush/UBC > Fritz Thyssen > Krupp etc). Meaning, we were already profiting, handsomely - our shores were NOT at risk - why then would we jump into save Britain? We did nothing until they gave us every secret they had - then finally we got involved.

 

This pic, over Hitler's left shoulder that's Fritz Thyssen.

Hitler-and-Fritz-Thyssen.jpg

This was one of his bankers at the time - US Senator Prescott Bush

image.jpg

 

 

p.s. Rommel was NOT a tactically brilliant anything - he was an opportunist and a belligerent door knocker. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1.5.2018 at 5:48 AM, jwilly said:

3. This is incorrect history. Both sides had leg infantry divisions. Both sides had mostly motorized divisions. The most motorized army was the British, not the Germans. The army with the most horse drawn artillery and supply in its motorized divisions was the Germans, not the French. The two fastest advances near combat of significant forces in 1940 were German 7th Light from the Meuse toward the Channel and French 1st Light Mechanized into Holland. The French had almost the same number of highly mechanized units as the Germans, and the British Army was entirely mechanized.

This is incorrect in concept. You can not reduce "mobile warfare" to the degree of motorization. More important than how many trucks you bring with your infantry division is how you lead them, how you organzie an offensive/defense and how you lay out echelons, communication routes and orders per se. When you melt down the mobility of a division to "leg infantry" vs. "no leg infantry" than all armies in the napoleonic wars would have had quite the same degree of mobility. In fact they didn't. Same goes for a division stationed in a static (single) line defense if you compare it to a divison in a mobile warfare focussed army that tries to achieve and sustain a quick breaktrough. I would be very carefull in reducing an army to it's bare equipment. If you look at the course of "Fall Gelb" you may notice that, like you pointed out, the french army clearly didn't lack trucks or tanks to react according to the ongoing of the war. But acting according to their battle plan, they weren't the active part - and as soon as major breakthroughs were achieved the whole defense crumbled really really fast - despite the army still being intact and equipped. They didn't lack trucks but the initiative and so the breakthroughs were not contained but tolerated.

You can compare that to the final battles of the eastern front where the Wehrmacht was forced by Hitler's orders - with a lot of generals protesting about how futile this would be - to hold a static line whith "fortress cities" while the russians being the agile force now - achieving breakthroughs and encirclements.

---

ANYWAYS: this whole post was more or less trolling because the initial proposition to introduce a timer is just awfull. The whole game is no "what if" scenario nor an accurate representation of the western front at any point. It is a somewhat balanced game with homage to the "Fall Gelb". Troop composition speaks a clear language here. Look at what the French did field in numbers and what french got in game (DB7). Look at how many medium german and french tanks we got in game. You guys are talking about what russia might have done in 1943  - I hope you got in mind that we only got nothern france. No colonies, no italian front, allmost no maginot line and you guys talk about how the timer should pay respect to russia? And we have AMERICANS joining the war and fielding troops without a fallen France. I don't want to offend my american friends here but does anybody think Hitler would have declared war on the US while still fighting in northern France? This is no accurate nor "what if" simulator but a balanced game. The simulation part of the game is paying respect to ballistics, not politics. If the axis side has to conquer the map in X time or else  it looses - then the axis should get the better equipment and gameplay advantages or this is just unfair. Of course you will say that they allready have that. We will disagree on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.