Starting Parameters?

[SeaMonkey]

You heard what HC said.

So....forum of the greatest strategic wargame on this planet.

The gathering of the greatest students of WW2 history???:rolleyes::confused::)

What say ye?

[jon_j_rambo]

Ah.....dah......what's the question?

[SeaMonkey]

Maybe the best way to approach such a proposition is with retrospect. Let's assume that we all agree that the high water mark for the Axis in WW2 was the Summer-Autumn of 1942. Tobruk had fallen and Rommel was checked at El Alamein, AG B was in the Caucasus and Stalingrad and the Japanese had just endured Midway and the Marine landings on Guadalcanal.

Now, looking backwards, what decisions, in small increments of time, could the Axis have taken to propel this highwater mark to a more future date? With such an exercise perhaps we can uncover a set of data points that culminates with an Axis stalemate and Allied peace overtures.

[SeaMonkey]

Could the AK have taken Alexandria and continued on to Cairo and the ME if Operation Herkules has been prosecuted? Would the invasion of Malta have been successful largely led by the Italians?

As for USSR, how about all those assets for Fall Blau had been used for another push on Moscow as the General Staff had advised? Would that have brought the Soviets to the bargaining table?

In the Pacific, suppose the IJN naval codes had not been broken and or the Midway operation had not been scheduled and those assets used in the SW Pacific? Its hard to imagine that the Japanese had a chance, but let's say for "what ifs" sake that the DoW had been delivered to Secretary Hull before the attack on PH(after all that was the intent).

The whole idea here is to not find a set of conditions for Axis victory but to examine a hypothesis where the Eastern Hemisphere(Axis ruled) reaches a co-existence with the Western Hemisphere(Allied governed).

In short, the best conditions for a WW2 oriented grand strategy game to be balanced(either side can achieve victory), playable and above all fun. Not...I repeat, NOT, to replay history as we know what happened.:rolleyes:

[jon_j_rambo]

@SeaMonkey --- Sounds like you need to make a scenario. Game starts at the time you stated. Japs win at Midway, Germans don't get stupid at Stalingrad, Battle of Britian, or MedFront/Africa.

By the way, interesting how the tough guy Nazis made bad decisions after Poland/France. It's a little different against a real opponent.

[LampCord]

@SeaMonkey --- Sounds like you need to make a scenario. Game starts at the time you stated. Japs win at Midway, Germans don't get stupid at Stalingrad, Battle of Britian, or MedFront/Africa.

By the way, interesting how the tough guy Nazis made bad decisions after Poland/France. It's a little different against a real opponent.

I would argue that they (well actually Hitler) even made bad decisions during the invasion of France. After all, he ordered his generals to stop their drive to Dunkirk just to prove he was in control.

There's another one we could add to the list. Hitler does NOT stop the advance on Dunkirk and all 300,000 troops that historically escaped were instead captured / or killed. This could be reflected by fewer starting land units for the UK.

Also, we could have some other alternatives that could have led to a more competitive war like:

Japan AVOIDS Midway altogether and thereby keeps her CV's in action much later into the war.
Japan never attacks Pearl (delaying US entry).
or go the other way and say:
Japan not only attacks Pearl but even successfully invades Pearl leaving the US without their most important naval base until recapture.

[jon_j_rambo]

I would argue that they (well actually Hitler) even made bad decisions during the invasion of France. After all, he ordered his generals to stop their drive to Dunkirk just to prove he was in control.

There's another one we could add to the list. Hitler does NOT stop the advance on Dunkirk and all 300,000 troops that historically escaped were instead captured / or killed. This could be reflected by fewer starting land units for the UK.

Also, we could have some other alternatives that could have led to a more competitive war like:

Japan AVOIDS Midway altogether and thereby keeps her CV's in action much later into the war.
Japan never attacks Pearl (delaying US entry).
or go the other way and say:
Japan not only attacks Pearl but even successfully invades Pearl leaving the US without their most important naval base until recapture.

Japan can already avoid Midway.
Japs can leave PH alone, delay USA entry. (see Vypuero World Campaign)
Japan can invade Hawaii (see Operation Z & Vypuero World Campaign)

Far as Hitler, yeah, we know now that he wanted political glory power & stopped Dunkirk.
On the otherhand, look at all the things that Hitler did that helped the 3R. Can't have it both ways.

[SeaMonkey]

Alrighty then...I see I have a few supporters...that's the spirit, how about a little further back.

Did you know that Ribbentrop invited and he came, Molotov, to Berlin in November 1940, actually it may have been a little earlier, but anyway, the discussion revolved around the Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact.

Of course they refused, but what if? Now shortly after that I believe we got Fuhrer Directive 21. What a game that would be with the Soviet's oil, the one commodity that always dogged the Axis, not to mention the MidEast oilfields within easy grasp through the Caucasus. UK and America will be hard pressed to maintain a presence in the East, even with China, India, Australia, SA, New Zealand. Are there others?

[jon_j_rambo]

How about a scenario from the movie "Final Countdown" when a carrier went back in time with Martin Sheen?

How about a scenario where Hitler is found to be the "Bear Jew" from Inglourious Basterds.

[arado234]

SeaMonkey that bit about Stalin joining with Hitler,It was true but can you imagine those two actually trusting eachother.Ill bet at the first chance they got one would for sure backstab the other.

Fall Blau,Remember if the Germans had driven straight for Moscow that would have left all those 655.000 Russians at Kiev looking into the German flank.Who knows how they would have been used.

We are all assuming that if the Germans dont make those early mistakes they yes things would have been WAY different.But what if the Allies didnt make their early mistakes.Then maybe the Axis dont even get as far as they did.

[SeaMonkey]

OK a234 I here you, but I need more detail, "early mistakes", what exactly are you refering to.

And yeah later on after the East has been stabilized, we have a "little" battle to see who the Bully on the block is, Nazis vs Reds.

I thought about the Kiev situation, what makes you think that they wouldn't have been there later on after the original drive on Moscow had been completed, probably by October 41? Think about it, AG South remains on the defensive, with tactical initiative, local attacks tying down Red Army elements. Think of the infantry formations from AGS that would have been available for PG II & III spearhead follow ups to Moscow. Now they would have been in perfect position to come in from the NE and help envelop the Kiev area after the Spring thaw in 42.

Rambo...WTH...you watch too many movies.:p Keep it credible here! But I did like the Inglerious Bastards, damn great WW2 fantasy, Tarantino rocks!:)

[jon_j_rambo]

Is Hitler to blame for the Battle of Graignes? 160 Legends held off a division.

[arado234]

SeaMonkey Imho as soon as the Russians saw what was up(Germans headed for Moscow)they would have either attacked into the flank(I do realise that A.G.south would have been on the defensive but they didnt have many tanks and thats where the Russians had most of their t34s and KV1s)or moved those troops to defend Moscow.That may or maynot have panicked Hitler(remember how he was worried about an attack right when the Germans could have easily taken Dunkirk)to change his mind and attack the Russians coming from the South and messing up his plans for Moscow.You are right in that trying to take Moscow was the right move.

As far as the Early Allied mistakes:
1-concentrate all Allied tanks en-mass to attack the Germans when the broke through across the Meuse(Most if not all German tanks had no hope against the Matilda or the French Char1b).The small counter-attack they did launch was one of the reasons Hitler was worried about taking Dunkirk.He worried about an Allied counter-attack.
2-Our bone-head Prime minister for not starting the a pilot training program that would have made available by early to mid 1940 about 1000 to 1200 fighter pilots.I would like to see the Krauts try any Battle of Britain with an extra 1000 plus fighters in the air over England(remember England had the planes to fly but not enough Pilots).
3-Sending the B.E.F.and the British fighters to France was also stupid.France was done VERY early but because of the probable MAJOR political problems abandoning France would have caused they had to do it.
4-Russia keeping all her troops right along the Polish border instead of pulling back(where they had built a quite good defensive system)would have made much more sense.How could Stalin not forsee what would happen when he saw what Germany did to the Poles and the French.
5-Stalin ignoring his spys which told him when(late 1940)that Germany was going to attack them,plus Stalin knew by mid 1940 that Germany was doing her ut-most to increase the size of her Army.
6-Stalins purge of his officers.This was REAL stupid.

[jon_j_rambo]

U.S. mistakes: Getting involved with European wars. Deal us out.

[arado234]

Oh,come on Rambo,Where is the fun in that.

SeaMonkey,I forgot to mention the most important one,As soon as Hitler marched into the Rhineland the Allies should have just stoodup to him and it would have been over.

[jon_j_rambo]

Why would the Allies stand-up to him? Guess, the same reason we are weak today.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Could the AK have taken Alexandria and continued on to Cairo and the ME if Operation Herkules has been prosecuted? Would the invasion of Malta have been successful largely led by the Italians?

In general, most of the what-ifs needed to happen much earlier than the battles you mentioned. It wasn't just a matter of doing this or that instead of the other thing in the field (or on the waves), but making some hard choices during the military buildups leading to war, particularly in terms of what weapons systems to emphasize (or cut from the budgets), doctrine, logistics, attention to how things really were (enemy capabilities and industrial potential) vs. the often fantastical imaginings of both Hitler and the Japanese higher-ups, etc. etc. I love u-boats of course, but it could be argued that the entire Kriegsmarine was a colossal waste of money, resources, and lives which in the end was unable to contribute to a war-winning strategy. Or vice-versa the Germans could have gone all-out with a huge sub fleet (forsaking the surface fleet which was a collection of white elephants), and being realistic and forward-looking enough to not lose the tech race in '43.

By Summer of '42 far too many trends to count were already in motion that would doom the Axis no matter what they did. In North Africa in particular there was a clock ticking in the form of the Torch invasions which would cause any Egyptian adventures to grind to a halt once they became fact.

Actually, if you want to go back far enough, the best route to "victory" for both Germany and Japan would have been to pursue what they actually did postwar-become peacetime economic powerhouses.

[jon_j_rambo]

Another question, how much micro control did Hitler really have?

[arado234]

John DIFOOL the 2nd how true that was and still is today.The Germans(Hitler) when they first started to re-arm never invisioned such opportunities and mistakes that the Allies made and would make that they could have taken atvantage of.Hindsite is 20/20.

[jon_j_rambo]

I bet Germans then (and today) have a totally different opinion.

[SeaMonkey]

See, this went just like I had concluded, we need to go further back. The whole crux of this thread is to determine just where GC would need to begin in order to produce a balance of military conflict.

You guys are all contributing essentially the same thing with different details and focus and we're all headed back into history to that moment. Is it like a234 suggested, 1936 with the reoccupation of the Rhineland or further as the world comes out of the Great Depression as JohnDF2 alludes to with economic emphasis?

We can't think like global citizens, too much nationalism back then, major countries with dictators at the helm. Put away the technological innovations of communications and infrastructure in our world, you've got to think on the lines of a 19th Century mentality, the infantile beginning of today's military doctrines. Not easy, its tough with our upbringing in this environmental crucible, we've been subjected to indoctinated behavior.

I'll be the first to admit if you stack all the Allies against all the Axis, Axis can't compete and so we'll need a sequence that unfolds that keeps the balance until that time everyone is in and there is the potential for the even playing field. So.....what is that order of entry?

Could it be in 1931, the Mukden Incident where USSR and Japan first go at it for the rest of Manchuria with modern(so to speak) weaponry. Can we as the players identify a path to balance starting with this action? The question remains, when is the best time to start and what will be the initial alignments?

[jon_j_rambo]

If you want the game to "be even", use a bid system like we did for SC-1.

[SeaMonkey]

True, but not everyone wants to go in and open up the editor, besides don't you want to see what the world may have had a realistic chance to become?:confused:

[jon_j_rambo]

How about new victory conditions & a turn-by-turn scorecard?

[arado234]

SeaMonkey thats a tough one but a good idea.

Ive also read that in 1929 German scientists new it was possible split an Atom.If Hitler had a different mindset(I realise if he had then there maynot have been a war like the world experienced)all those German scientists that left Germany because of Hitler might verywell have stayed and worked for him.Bad for us.

SeaMonkey it will be real tough to build the type of game you want(but it sure would be neat)

I think the funnest idea will be when we can have multi-players on the same side at the same time.Then you will see some REAL political madness.That will be fun.

[SeaMonkey]

I like that turn by turn scorecard, good one Rambo.

Really I would like to keep the Nuclear option out of this global conflict, kind of ruins the game with such an omnipotent weapon.

You know a234 I've been thinking about that, multi-player options, almost like the 3 sided platform, where you have the Axis, Allies, and Communists. Or...perhaps each side has the option to make one of its partners AI guided, so you have that one ally that won't necessarily conform to your game plan.

As Axis you could guide Japan and Germany, but Italy is the wild-card. And for the Allies, UK, USA, and USSR, one of which would be AI controlled, player option.

[jon_j_rambo]

@SM --- Vypuero & myself I trying that in a current game. You get annual points for ownership of various cities, canals, etc. Also, there are points once per year if you firebomb (city reduceded to 0) a key city.

Too much yacking, anybody wanna game?

[SeaMonkey]

I'll try to get off a turn this evening, if I can get home at a decent time, had a horrible weekend.

Come on you guys, Rambo is a blast to play, he tries all kinds of stuff, really interesting games. He'll, sorta of, :rolleyes:help you along the way!

[LampCord]

How about making scoring relative to historical results. You have to do better than your side did in real life. Then you don't have to tweak reality to get to an 'even' game.

That's what Anglo-German War did and it made otherwise unplayable scenarios like the invasions of Poland and France quite interesting.

[SeaMonkey]

Thing is LC we play these same old territorial reruns over and over, Poland goes down easy, France is simple. What if you get a decent fight out of the Frogs or the Polish military allies with Germany and they go after the Reds together.

Hitler did try to get them to join the cause, when they refused, "Fall Weiss" happened.

[arado234]

Gotta disagree with ya SeaMonkey on the Atomic bomb.Because it was so Ulta potent it was the main reason why the war didnt go on longer(and saved ALOT of American lives).If the Allies cant build it then the victory conditions should change atleast against Japan and America should get something in return for not having to spend the MASSIVE amounts it did to reasearch and build it.This is something you cant just take away and not give something back.

I also think that when an engineer starts to build fortifications and has to move but the tile it was fortifying wasnt occupied by enemy forces then it should be able to move back to that tile and continue and not have to start all over again.The work it started would still be there.

[jon_j_rambo]

Thing is LC we play these same old territorial reruns over and over, Poland goes down easy, France is simple. What if you get a decent fight out of the Frogs or the Polish military allies with Germany and they go after the Reds together.

Hitler did try to get them to join the cause, when they refused, "Fall Weiss" happened.


I will have to agree that after enough games, there is a cookie cutter. As Germany, spend all your MMPs on ground units & the tech for the ground.....and use it all on Russia.

@SM --- Got a scenario or mod you wanna play?

@LampCord --- Yes, I pushing for scoring systems. The current Victory Conditions are all based on capitals. I'd love to have a "live score" based on whatever factors (property owned, firebombings, etc)

[jon_j_rambo]

Anybody wanna game? You pick scenario & side.......dont' care, just need some action.

[SeaMonkey]

Crap! Rambo, I can't keep up with you as it is now much less start another game.

Are you ready to surrender? If so, then perhaps we can start something else, after installing the 1.03 patch. I've been wanting to play Z with the new features, but we'll have to end our game, which I must say has been great fun.

You guys owe it to yourselves to try Nupremal's World Campaign if you haven't. It is the epitome of SC and it will give you a good taste of the limits we don't want to cross(IMO). This scenario requires a lot of attention from the players to get through a turn and its length is about the maximum time I want to put in to get a turn done, about an hour.

In my present situation with a life, its not easy to put aside an hour to dedicate to a turn and the longer the time required the greater chance of an interruption, which sometimes ruins my train of thought or puts me on another task.:(

[xwormwood]

Anybody wanna game? You pick scenario & side.......dont' care, just need some action.
I would like to play, and if you like we could do an AAR (here or at buntaland / http://s15.invisionfree.com/Buntaland/index.php?)

:)

[jon_j_rambo]

Crap! Rambo, I can't keep up with you as it is now much less start another game.

Are you ready to surrender? If so, then perhaps we can start something else, after installing the 1.03 patch. I've been wanting to play Z with the new features, but we'll have to end our game, which I must say has been great fun.

You guys owe it to yourselves to try Nupremal's World Campaign if you haven't. It is the epitome of SC and it will give you a good taste of the limits we don't want to cross(IMO). This scenario requires a lot of attention from the players to get through a turn and its length is about the maximum time I want to put in to get a turn done, about an hour.

In my present situation with a life, its not easy to put aside an hour to dedicate to a turn and the longer the time required the greater chance of an interruption, which sometimes ruins my train of thought or puts me on another task.:(


Dude, don't get too happy with the success that early version. What are we playing, his 4th version? Axis have HUGE advantage in that version.

Surrender, "NUTS". I've got two full years to try to take some territory back. Japs have done nothing.

[jon_j_rambo]

I would like to play, and if you like we could do an AAR (here or at buntaland / http://s15.invisionfree.com/Buntaland/index.php?)

:)

@Xwormwood --- Last time we played we did mirrored in Operation Z, we both kicked ass as Allies, that was the early version where "Allies always win". Then we played a couple turns of Vypuero's World Campaign (version 2, now there is like 11th version). We were smart not to continue that early version.

That was then, this is now: What do you have in mind?

[xwormwood]

I have nothing special in mind, but as you are playing a bit more often i would like you to choose which campaign we gonna play ( ii imagine it might be a bit boring for you if you have to play one campaign or one side to often in a row).
Just decide which one you want and which side you want to play (a mirrored play would be good as well, of course).

Either i start and send you the turn (after you told me which campaign to choose) or you start a campaign with the side of your choosing.

[jon_j_rambo]

Let me look around a little bit at the scenarios that come with the game. I'll get back to you. I'm in the mood for something new & mid-size, thus I'm ruling out Operation Z & Vypuero's World Campaign at this moment.

[xwormwood]

Great! And take you time!
:)