Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

kazee

If Tier 3 is suppose to represent 1943...

Recommended Posts

kazee

If Tier 3 is suppose to represent 1943...then why are there American towns (garrisons) in Europe in 1943 ?

I'm no history major but I don't think there were towns in Europe under American control in 1943. B)

Yeah we can have an american division on the map in '43 if u want, that's fine, but town ownership and garrisons should be discussed

You can debate historical accuracy with equipment all you want but american town ownership in '43 in non-debatable 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goreblimey

Duh.  Or the British or the French ...lol

Pretty obvious a needed game mechanic. 

The game is fantasy after all .

Edited by goreblimey
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
34 minutes ago, kazee said:

american town ownership in '43 in non-debatable 

The US invaded North Africa in 1942, because the Germans held all of France and that was the first stepping stone.

In WWIIOL, though, the historical premise is that as long as the French aren't defeated in-game, nothing subsequent to the BoF armistice and dependent on those events has occurred.

So with the Third Republic still holding western North Africa, instead of Vichy, there's no need to invade there. And, with France still holding the western and southern ports, there's no need to invade in Normandy. And, that means there's no reason to wait until 1944 to be ready for Overlord and Anvil/Dragoon.

The US had forces ready to participate in the European fighting in 1942. Historically, those forces went to North Africa. In-game, though, they can just be shipped to Brest, St. Nazaire or another safe western-France port, and moved to the front via the French rail system. Easy peasy.

It's crazy to suppose that the French would let the US or anyone else take over their country and displace their own armies, fighting for the survival of France as an independent country. But, I'd certainly bet that the French would have welcomed some American divisions in 1942, just as they welcomed British and Canadian ones in 1940.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goreblimey

SO the real question is, WHY arent Americans in Tier 2.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B2K

The tiers have never aligned with years very well,  they weren't originally designed to.  over time as more equipment (and countries) got added, it thew it off even more.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

I'd have no problem with having a USA division come in tier 2; just as long as no towns could be switched to USA; just the division. (and only with gear up to 1942 of course)

But with that, have to fix the tiers, need to just fix the game code so there are 6 tiers;  (0-5) and have gear come in at the right time.  It only makes obvious sense.

Game lasts 6 tiers, 10 days each; at the end of the 60 days (obviously neither side has won yet), the map is looked at and declared an axis or allied minor victory - or a draw.  Then, no map will ever last past 60 days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

Part of the "back story" question is why there are American troops, other than a token force, in France at all.

If the French, British, Belgians and Canadians are powerful enough to stall the German advance in 1940, and subsequently into 1942...with purchases or "loans" of significant amounts of American equipment...what would be the political argument in the US for sending our forces over there?

But that's how the present game is structured.

 

Share this post


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

I'd have no problem with having a USA division come in tier 2; just as long as no towns could be switched to USA; just the division. (and only with gear up to 1942 of course)

But with that, have to fix the tiers, need to just fix the game code so there are 6 tiers;  (0-5) and have gear come in at the right time.  It only makes obvious sense.

Game lasts 6 tiers, 10 days each; at the end of the 60 days (obviously neither side has won yet), the map is looked at and declared an axis or allied minor victory - or a draw.  Then, no map will ever last past 60 days.

That'd suck. I'm ****'ed if I want to spend 60 days on a campaign only for it to be arbitrarily a "declared" result and for no good reason that I can see. I agree that tiers need reviewing and service-dates regularising. The Pak38 has absolutely no business in tier 0 for a start. What is it with all the "flexibility" on service-dates that seems to have crept in in the last 4 years? I'm quietly confident delems can come up with a few allied anachronisms too. <grin>

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kidd27
12 hours ago, kazee said:

If Tier 3 is suppose to represent 1943...then why are there American towns (garrisons) in Europe in 1943 ?

I'm no history major but I don't think there were towns in Europe under American control in 1943. B)

Yeah we can have an american division on the map in '43 if u want, that's fine, but town ownership and garrisons should be discussed

You can debate historical accuracy with equipment all you want but american town ownership in '43 in non-debatable 

 

Thats what happened in RL.

however, in our game the allies still hold a piece of the mainland allowing the US to be shipped over.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N8

STG 44 in-game, don't be worried about the Americans, Kazee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
james10

Possible histories are always interesting. WWIIOnline is proposing a “possible” history.

I do feel strongly there should be the US forces in WWIIonline as a WWII game without the presence of US forces, especially based in Western Europe would be very difficult to have. I am still bemused the when the Original Rats were conceiving and building With Blitzkrieg they elected to commence in 1940 when the presence of any US forces would be a deal-breaker. Obviously, they did intend to add the US forces eventually, which is what happened. Anyhow, to the matter at hand.

While it is good to base the scenario on the possibility the French, British and to a lesser extent the Belgians are able to stall the German advance sufficiently that in effect the French are not conquered. The British also don’t have to beat a hasty and unceremoniously retreat back across the English Channel, here is where things start to become problematic, especially for the any US forces being present in Europe.

During the 30’s and extending up until the Japanese attack on Perl Harbor in Dec 7, 1941, the mood within the US public was to “not participate in any future European conflict ever again”. Isolationism was the order of the day. The Executive Branch of the US government did not necessarily support or more importantly was in any doubt that it was not in the US’s best interests to presume another war in Europe would stay confined within Europe.

As far as I am aware the US at that time were under no obligations in relation to treaties or pacts similar to those that precipitated the entry of the French and British into what would become WWII by the German invasion of Poland. It is very odd as neither could nor did do virtually anything to aid Poland once they had declared war on Germany. Probably because neither were in any position to do so. Potentially had Franc and Britain did not honor their treaty with Poland than attack into France may not have happened. I would be very surprised had the French and British not declared war but if they did it was likely , the Germans would have struck east into the USSR in 1940 in place of striking west as they did. But hat is a whole ‘nother discussion. I do feel war between Germany and the USSR would happen. When was the only question?

The US did not just declare war at the first opportunity, with France and Britain in September 1939 basically for the reasons outlined above.

Germany conquers Poland then turns west ultimately to deal with the major land threat of France with the two front experiences of WWI were still fresh in the people minds who were playing out the drama. Britain however, was a significant sea threat.

Something the French did do was to advance into the Saar. Unfortunately, the quick German victory over Poland allowed German troops to be redeployed to defend then counterattack the French units that did advance into the Saar. Also, and even more unfortunately the French troops withdrew. 7 Sep - 17 October 1940. The “Phoney War” begins.

Germany invades Denmark and Norway successfully with the French and British support attempt for Norway being rebuffed. 9 April - 10 June 1940.

The Invasion of France and the Low Countries commences early on 10 May 1940. The standard WWIIOnline “Campaign” commences around 11-12 May 1940, just prior to the Breakout of Army Group A from the Ardennes, Tier 0.

The path to war for the US is a series of unsettling events. The first event is the Fall of France. This was a “shaking to the core” event as the then prevalent thinking at the time if there was another war in Europe would be very similar to WWI. It would eventually be an entrenched stalemate.

If as the WWIIOnline history postulated the Fall of France does not occur this event can no longer contribute to the US entry into the then “European War”. Isolationism was the order of the day.

The following events can also no longer contribute to the US entry into the war simply because France is not conquered but fights on.

Battle of Britain, the London Blitz and the Lend-Lease bill:
The setting up for the Invasion of Britain and the resulting Battle of Britain and continuing to the Blitz. If the German forces are still engaged in land fighting in France the invasion of Britain is very unlikely to be contemplated. While the invasion in itself was not a contributing factor to the US march to war, it did present the requirement to contest, then control of the airspace over southern England to permit the invasion to take place. Enter the Battle of Britain, then the London Blitz. These events were presented to influence public opinion away from the Isolationism that was present, and I would suggest gave weight to the Executive Branch of the US government arguments in favor of at least helping in the European Conflict.

Quote

"What do I do in such a crisis?" the president asked at a press conference. "I don't say ... 'Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for it' ... I don't want $15 - I want my garden hose back after the fire is over.
   president Roosevelt on Lend Lease.

Steps in reducing the US public’s desire for Isolationism. The Lend Lease bill went into US law on March 11 1941. Without the swing in public opinion (be it ever so slight) in the US, generated by the sympathy for the plight of the British people under the terror of the Blitz, this and other steps away from Isolationism is very likely to be difficult if not impossible.

The Battle of the Atlantic:
The bases that allowed free operational access to the Atlantic by the German U-Boats were all pretty well, along the French Atlantic coast. In the event France does not fall as is postulated by the WWIIOnline back story, then those bases are unavailable to the Germans. The ability of the Germans to use those bases permitted the U-Boats to venture further into the Atlantic than if they had to sail from Keil. Basing U-boats along the German Atlantic coast or Norway increased the distance the U-boats had to traverse to the convoy routes. This reduced their operational time on mission, and they would have been exposed to a greater chance of interception and being sink as they went around to the north of Scapa Flow. Their range may have insufficient to allow them from successfully hunting within US coastal waters. Once again US public opinion was influenced as ships torpedoed in US coastal waters were clearly visible sinking along the US east coast, especially at night burning as they sank. Tankers were visible for considerable distances, by day and especially so at night. No French Atlantic ports then the occurrence of ships visibly sinking and burning reduced. The effect on US public opinion is also not moved away from absolute Isolationism by the clearly visible presence of the European War on the doorstep.

Other considerations:
Italy declared war on France and the United Kingdom on 10 June 1940. On 18 June 1940 both parties commenced negotiations to end hostilities. The Second Armistice at Compiègne ending the Battle of France was signed on 22 June 1940. It is very likely Italy would have not declared war on the France and the United Kingdom if France were not going to fall. I feel the Italian Declaration of War was simply to get a “Seat at the Victors table”. Is that unheard-of in history? Well no, I suspect the Soviet Declaration of War against Japan was for the same reason. Especially as the Atomic weapon had been demonstrated by its operation use by US aircraft against Japanese cities just prior to the Soviet Declaration of War.

Germany vs the USSR.
I believe a war between Germany and the USSR is inevitable. It would be only a case of when. With the fall of France, the timetable as did happen during WWII is well what happened. Although the Germans were not planning for the attack on the USSR to occur till after they had time to prepare. I would suggest the actual declaration of war by France and Britain over Poland was a little unexpected, mostly due the actions of France and Britain to previous German operations. I do see the invasion of Poland as the avenue to open the way for the Germans to attack the Soviet Union. The German-USSR pact that divided up a conquered Poland provided each the ability to buy the time to prepare for their upcoming match. The French and British response put several “fly’s in that ointment”.

Now if the Germans are having a hard time in France, I would see it being unlikely they would even attempt to commence operations against the Soviet Union. Therefore, the Germans would be unlikely to attack the USSR until the Western front was clear. Barbarossa in 1941 would be very unlikely if France doesn’t fall. The Soviets on the other hand would appreciate the time to prepare for war against the Germans at a time of their choosing, especially if the Germans are struggling in the west. In short if France does not fall it is very likely the Germans would be forced onto a two front war by a Soviet attack into the remaining half of Poland.

The US and the war in the Pacific.
Even the progress of the War in the Pacific was affected by the Fall of France. Although Japan needed to obtain resources to continue the war in China, the Fall of France and subsequent events is very likely to have emboldened the Japanese Military Commanders to expand their thinking. This would include the attacking the very distracted United Kingdom and the occupation of the former French Colonies in South East Asia. This includes the occupation of the now defunct Dutch control of the Dutch Ease Indies (oil). Hence the attacks targeting those areas. I suspect the attack on the US at Perl Harbor was more an attempt to convince the bigger guy to “stay out”. What actually happened in the case of the “Day of Infamy” resulted in completely the opposite effect. Was this a serious blunder on behalf of the Japanese Government or was it engineered? The subject of another warm forum debate I would suspect. Ok to the Germans. At the time, the Germans were either approaching or at their zenith of expansion so in accordance with the pact obliged the US Government in declaring war on the US first.

I very much suspect the progress of the roll up to the expansion of the war in China to encompass all of the Pacific would have been very different for Japan if France did not fall. Japan would be less emboldened to attack the UK sphere of interest as the British would be less distracted by the European war. The French colonies would also be still French colonies and France itself is likely to be less distracted as well, all going well that is. Japan and the US relations would also be less combative as the US government would be less able to pursue an aggressive foreign policy that is very likely to lead to a war with Japan. The US public for Isolationist policy in play. Although the Pacific is as far as I can determine is where the primary sphere of interest for the US is, as opposed to Europe, public opinion wise.

I suspect that war in the Pacific is very likely. The defining factor would be who the Japanese would need to attack to obtain the resources they needed. The Dutch East Indies is a very likely target as they are effectively no longer. Would the Japanese attempt the knock out blow against a more Pacific focused US? I would suggest no. The United Kingdom, Malaya, Borneo etc. All tempting targets but without a distracted colonial power the “smash and grab” would be very likely to turn into the war the Japanese eventually had but were in no position to prosecute and also without the initial success either. The sort form of this is the surprise attack on Perl Harbor is very unlikely to occur. The Dutch colonies would be ripe for the pickings but that could also entangle the French British and possibly the US as well. As far as the US entry into the European war I would suggest the Germans if struggling in France would be unlikely to declare war on the US to fulfill their treaty obligations to the Japanese if pressed. The US declaration of war against the Germans would be required but that would entail the US involvement in another European war. War against an expansionist Japan would be more likely due to the Pacific focus of the US.

 

With the above considerations it is not beyond the realms of possibility there would be no US forces present in the European theater if the French surrender and subsequent events do not happen.

Would this eventuality be a good thing? I would emphatically say no. The simple issue is the back story for the game is not all that plausible to support what actually happens in-game. Namely France does not fall.

But as jwilly says:

18 hours ago, jwilly said:

But that's how the present game is structured.

 

Cheers.

Edited by james10
Typos clarifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

Excellent and  most interesting post. Not sure I quite agree with  all your conclusions, but in the main, yes.

Personally, I'd prefer the games campaigns did not start necessarily with the same tier or set-up, ie sequential campaigns.

I'd like to see:

Campaign 1. May 1940. If Germans win, next campaign set-up starting fron Normandy area in 1944 (#2 below).  If allies win, next campaign is Mat 1940 agaim.

Campaign 2. June 1944 Normandy. Next campaign is May 1940 (#1 above) in either case of a win. No Arfr but Leclercs Div modelled, also Canadians and US units. Massive allied air-superiority modelled.

If a "North Africa" or Eastern Front theatres ever done then further campaigns could be added to the possible outcomes.

This has the great benefit of keeping more close to the history, less "weirdness" in TOE's and allows for some variety in the campaign's character and sequences.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
21 hours ago, kazee said:

If Tier 3 is suppose to represent 1943...then why are there American towns (garrisons) in Europe in 1943 ?

I'm no history major but I don't think there were towns in Europe under American control in 1943. B)

Yeah we can have an american division on the map in '43 if u want, that's fine, but town ownership and garrisons should be discussed

You can debate historical accuracy with equipment all you want but american town ownership in '43 in non-debatable

The US was sending troops across the ATL in 1942. The only reason why there were not US troops on the mainland (vs UK) was that they needed to invade first.

If ww2ol is 1943, and the Germans have not won the continent yet, leaving just the UK, then the US forces simply land in France/etc in a port, and move inland to where they are deployed. It makes perfect sense.

The counterfactuals are exactly about WHERE units are, nothing else (which is why the RAF on the mainland argument is abject nonsense).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
james10

Hello tater how are you?

5 hours ago, tater said:

(which is why the RAF on the mainland argument is abject nonsense).

On this point I must strenusioly disagree.

There were RAF airforce air assets based in continental France at the start of the Battle for France. See "RAF Advanced Air Striking Force". This force was based on French airfeilds and was answerable to the Air Ministry and not the British Expeditionary Force. The lessons of army, airforce co-operation were still yet to be learned from the Germans at that point. The RAF Advanced Air Striking Force consisted of 10 squadrons of Fairy Battles, 2 squadrons of Bristol Blenheim IV and up to 3 squadrons of Hawker Hurricanes, ALL operating from airfeilds in continental France. Not an insignificant number of aircraft. Do notice there are NO Spitfires. The Spitfire was only to be based in England and was specifically reserved for Home defence as per Churchills orders. This is the state at the beginning of the WWIIOnline Campaign, Tier 0. Once however, it become aparent that the invasion of England is less likly then I could see the Spitfire being allowed to operate on French soil, Tier 1.

Aparently when released WWIIOnline didn't permit Spitfires being based in France either. All else including the fictiouous Boston, could be based in France at the start of the campaign, t0. The Spitfire restriction was relaxed as aparently it was a "bit much" for the players.

Just a note, the British Boston Bomber only occoured as a direct result of the Fall fo France. Had France not fallen moving to tier 1, the initial batch of RAF (British) Boston bombers would be flying with the FAF and not the RAF as did happen historically. So in tier 0 the very presence of the RAF Boston Bomber is entirly fictiouous. Why did the Rats use the Boston Bomber for the RAF? Well I would suggest that as they had the model for the French DB7 and the Britisd did use the DB7 (Boston), that would have presented a simple way to add a bomber to the British without an new model being creating from scrach.

Cheers.

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
12 minutes ago, james10 said:
Quote

(which is why the RAF on the mainland argument is abject nonsense)

On this point I must strenuously disagree.

There were RAF airforce air assets based in continental France at the start of the Battle for France.

My impression to date has been that Tater has argued against the "all British aircraft, not just Spitfires, must be based in England" theme. Possibly you are misunderstanding him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
james10

That isn't the impression I gathered from his quote I used.

If as you say he is suggesting the RAF be permitted on mainland France his line could be very well made a lot clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mariposa
On 9/10/2020 at 6:54 PM, kazee said:

If Tier 3 is suppose to represent 1943...then why are there American towns (garrisons) in Europe in 1943 ?

I'm no history major but I don't think there were towns in Europe under American control in 1943. B)

Yeah we can have an american division on the map in '43 if u want, that's fine, but town ownership and garrisons should be discussed

You can debate historical accuracy with equipment all you want but american town ownership in '43 in non-debatable 

 

Isn't tier 3 1944?

STG 44, firefly, sherman 76, etc. are all 1944 weapons...

 

Also if we are going for historical accuracy can we talk about tier 3 lw and tigers, mg34s, opels and haftracks in large supply, kriegsmarine, & german soldiers at full health. Lets get rid of them, its a-historic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

Tier 3 at present is from the beginning of 1943 to the end of the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** Isn't tier 3 1944?

No, it is 1943 by anyone who knows this game.

By original design it does seem that tier 3 was anything 1943 and beyond.  So, yes - 44 would be included.

But, that faces completely against the fact that tier 0 is 1940, and tier 1 is 1941 and tier 2 is 1942........... one can quite logically deduce tier 3 is 1943.

The game, imo, needs to get the tiers set right - 6 tiers (0-5).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kazee
2 hours ago, mariposa said:

Isn't tier 3 1944?

 

not 100% sure but i always thought it was '43

I have no issues with the american div or towns, just not sure towns should be american in tier 3

The big issue i have with it is the RDP advantage americans have, its a major major issue and should be debated. Even if axis get french factories to 100% damage americans are still only cut 50% since their rdp is split between the brit and french factories

Maybe we should discuss rotating their rdp between brit and french each campaign...one campaign american rdp is tied to french, next campaign its tied to brit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** Maybe we should discuss rotating their rdp between brit and french each campaign...one campaign american rdp is tied to french, next campaign its tied to brit. 

idk, seems to me the average is fine.

Share this post


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

not 100% sure but i always thought it was '43

I have no issues with the american div or towns, just not sure towns should be american in tier 3

The big issue i have with it is the RDP advantage americans have, its a major major issue and should be debated. Even if axis get french factories to 100% damage americans are still only cut 50% since their rdp is split between the brit and french factories

Maybe we should discuss rotating their rdp between brit and french each campaign...one campaign american rdp is tied to french, next campaign its tied to brit. 

The only limiting factor on US RDP is shipping-capacity. The notion of bombing factories in France to affect US RDP is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2
22 minutes ago, fidd said:

The only limiting factor on US RDP is shipping-capacity. The notion of bombing factories in France to affect US RDP is ludicrous.

nothing to say that if the US get RDP facilities  that they actually have to be factories.  For example say you put a  US RDP   in Liverpool it acts like a factory  but it modelled to look like a dock, therefore rather than damaging the production off the stuff you are hampering unloading times from ships, different modelling same effect.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kidd27
43 minutes ago, foe2 said:

nothing to say that if the US get RDP facilities  that they actually have to be factories.  For example say you put a  US RDP   in Liverpool it acts like a factory  but it modelled to look like a dock, therefore rather than damaging the production off the stuff you are hampering unloading times from ships, different modelling same effect.  

right-o. There's always an effective workaround to get to the same result. A nice idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

US production obviously comes from US factories, unreachable by German bombers.

It comes over via convoys for which there's no game-mechanism for interdiction.

It arrives in far western or possibly southern French ports, unreachable by German bombers.

If it's Lend-Lease stuff for France, it's moved by rail to the French military's central depots around Paris to be organized. If it's for American forces in France, it goes by rail to the American equivalent of Arras, the central British depot/supply-dump location. Both are unreachable by German bombers at game-start.

Then it's dispatched by rail to forward supply dumps, from which it goes by truck/wagon to front line units.

And, everything built in French factories for the French military, and built in 

The rail system that connects the front lines to the Paris-area depots, and the British supply depots at Arras, and the American supply depots somewhere is not out of range of German bombers.

Rail sorting yards, trans-shipment stations and key river-bridges all are important rail-system targets that should be defined in-game as damageable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...