RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/13/2011 6:20:14 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

Part of the issue with all of this is trying to figure out who benefits the most from hindsight and is consistently able to translate that to an advantage in the game. This is one of the reasons why it is very difficult to come up with conditions because right now, the Germans are exceeding historical gains in terms of geography in 1941 although they are not causing the losses they did historically. In a sense, you could call it a "win" for the Germans for exceeding historical geographical gains and a "win" for the Russians since they suffered fewer casualties, although I think it is a bit ore tainted since the Germans are suffering fewer losses as well. Another issue is what is more important from a victory standpoint of view? Casualties or territory? Right now, the game doesn't really have much of a territorial pain threshold (a VP system would introduce that), so whoever is defending is more than happy to give up territory to reduce casualties. Casualties would likely be included in any VP system (or should anyway) and balancing that with territory gains/losses would also be extremely difficult since the importance of one over the other varies in the opinion of one person to the next.

If the Germans are able to consistently outperform their historical 1941 counterparts, then where is the "draw" line at? On top of all this, you have to have a body of people agree that any "line" is reasonable or no one will consider using it. A very complicated issue to work out.

(in reply to saintsup)

Post #: 61

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/13/2011 6:46:37 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Right now, the game doesn't really have much of a territorial pain threshold (a VP system would introduce that)

No, it wouldn't. There is this assumption going around these parts that the reason for these large and ahistorical German gains is because of Soviet runaways. That's just not true. Changing the VPs won't change the fact that Leningrad is darn near indefensible, that SW front is demolished on turn one and AGS can cross the Dnepr a good month ahead of schedule or more, or that AGC can supply a drive to Moscow for most of the summer.

The German is advancing quickly because he cannot be stopped or even slowed down much until much further east than these points.

You cannot make the VP system perform the job that the logistics system isn't. Until and unless logistics gets a doever, this is what we are stuck with.

Beyond that, very few Soviet players are interested in just playing a sudden death 1941 game which necessarily and structurally is a game set up for German players. Soviets can only prevent sudden death, they will never achieve it in 1941 -- they are always playing the longer game. You're not going to find a lot of takers here on the Soviet side. We know we're going to take our lumps in 1941. Most of us simply do not believe that the war was a 1 year affair and have no interest in playing a game that artificially imposes this timeline on us. We have a Barbarossa scenario in the game -- which mostly goes unplayed.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 11/13/2011 6:47:38 PM >

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 62

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/13/2011 6:54:26 PM

Mehring

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Right now, the game doesn't really have much of a territorial pain threshold (a VP system would introduce that)

You cannot make the VP system perform the job that the logistics system isn't. Until and unless logistics gets a doever, this is what we are stuck with.

_____________________________

�Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.�
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 63

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/13/2011 6:59:20 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
There is this assumption going around these parts that the reason for these large and ahistorical German gains is because of Soviet runaways. That's just not true.

I agree with your point, but also agree with Klydon--VPs, if done right, could rectify the main consequence of Sov run-aways: the fact that the Sovs are not suffering historical losses and thus the Red Army is much stronger than historical in 1942. VPs could also give the Germans more of an incentive to attack in 1942.

While I would like to think that VPs would help resolve these issues, in fact I think it would be very difficult to balance the VPs.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 64

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/13/2011 8:00:32 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Right now, the game doesn't really have much of a territorial pain threshold (a VP system would introduce that)

No, it wouldn't. There is this assumption going around these parts that the reason for these large and ahistorical German gains is because of Soviet runaways. That's just not true. Changing the VPs won't change the fact that Leningrad is darn near indefensible, that SW front is demolished on turn one and AGS can cross the Dnepr a good month ahead of schedule or more, or that AGC can supply a drive to Moscow for most of the summer.

The German is advancing quickly because he cannot be stopped or even slowed down much until much further east than these points.

You cannot make the VP system perform the job that the logistics system isn't. Until and unless logistics gets a doever, this is what we are stuck with.

Beyond that, very few Soviet players are interested in just playing a sudden death 1941 game which necessarily and structurally is a game set up for German players. Soviets can only prevent sudden death, they will never achieve it in 1941 -- they are always playing the longer game. You're not going to find a lot of takers here on the Soviet side. We know we're going to take our lumps in 1941. Most of us simply do not believe that the war was a 1 year affair and have no interest in playing a game that artificially imposes this timeline on us. We have a Barbarossa scenario in the game -- which mostly goes unplayed.

Flav, you skipped right over the part where I said that part of the issue is trying to figure out where the bar should be and most likely it will be a lot higher than historical for the Axis simply because they have been doing better in hindsight for the 1941 campaign. There isn't any screwing around with Leningrad like the Germans historically did and I can point to several other examples where German plans were constantly changed while most good German players have a overall plan they are executing with few changes. That makes a big difference. There are also going to be some changes coming I am sure to slow down the Germans (5 to 4 rail conversion coming up to name an example).

Until the Russians start taking historical casualties AND are losing a lot more than historical territory in most games, a lot of people are going to assume part of the reason the German advance is going so far is because the Russians are simply running. I don't say that with a strong opinion one way or another (although I suspect the Germans are quite capable of not only inflicting historical casualties, but getting better than historical gains right now), but many Axis players are going to point to that as the root cause as to why the Axis advances are getting so far.

I don't have an issue with "sudden death" for the Russians either as a result of the winter offensive. After all, turn about is fair play. It would not only encourage the Russians to try to hold as much territory as possible during 1941 (to be closer to the spring 1942 objectives), but would also stop the Germans from simply retreating during winter, especially if they happen to have their backs up against the wall of trying to avoid a sudden death victory condition.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 65

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 12:46:06 PM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

I don't have the game, so what I say is bound to be stupid, but as long time player of WITP and avid forum follower, there is one thing I don't understand : Why are the Soviet units so weak in 41 but the command and control the player has over their forces so high ? My somewhat limited knowledge of the eastern front points at soviet units that could really fight, counterattack and defend chockepoints but a soviet army that was operationnaly inept which led to ill fated defensive or counterattacking strategies.

Now if the game allowed it, I would find interesting to prop up quite massively the Soviet units individually, but have major random (or partially random) movement or MP penalties for the Soviets, impossibility for such or such army to move east for say to turns, etc... Basically making the Soviet army not a big woblly blob like it is now, but a messy jigsaw of quite sharp pieces... Not quite possible I am sure, but design wise there is a flaw : The soviets are way too weak but way too organised in 41..

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 66

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 1:34:43 PM

Mehring

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

I don't have the game, so what I say is bound to be stupid, but as long time player of WITP and avid forum follower, there is one thing I don't understand : Why are the Soviet units so weak in 41 but the command and control the player has over their forces so high ? My somewhat limited knowledge of the eastern front points at soviet units that could really fight, counterattack and defend chockepoints but a soviet army that was operationnaly inept which led to ill fated defensive or counterattacking strategies.

Now if the game allowed it, I would find interesting to prop up quite massively the Soviet units individually, but have major random (or partially random) movement or MP penalties for the Soviets, impossibility for such or such army to move east for say to turns, etc... Basically making the Soviet army not a big woblly blob like it is now, but a messy jigsaw of quite sharp pieces... Not quite possible I am sure, but design wise there is a flaw : The soviets are way too weak but way too organised in 41..

I tend to agree. It seems that if the Russians fight historically, they will be destroyed without historically delaying the Axis. Their nominal CVs are far too weak. Yet they can, via leader replacement and in no time at all, be commanded by leaders not significantly if at all weaker than the late war years. This can give tham an ahistorical mobility, flexibility and logistical support. One way to over come this might be to start the game with leaders of much lower initiative, admin and combat ratings, allowing them to improve more from both good and bad experience.

In addition, I'm wondering to what extent the Russian army command capacities actually reflect their historical counterparts. It's been mentioned that the tank armies appearing later were corps size, which in Russian terms would mean three tank/mech corps. I've also read, but can't substantiate, that regualar Russian armies of 1941 were generally of around five divisions. True? If so, surely Russians should have more but smaller armies and be more difficult to command, closer to the cumbersome and confusing corps HQ system with which they begin the campaign.

_____________________________

�Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.�
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 67

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 3:45:39 PM

BleedingOrange

Posts: 31
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

The problem with victory conditions is that we don't know what could have or would have happened, only what did. What would have happened if the Germans managed to capture Moscow? Would the Soviets have surrendered? I personnally don't think Stalin ever would have surrendered. However had he survived the fall of Moscow it's possible that someone may have removed him from power. Would the new leader surrender and try to save what is left or continue to fight? People like to look back with hindsight, but at that time the Soviets weren't that impressive. They didn't do well in WW1, they got a bloody nose in Finland, and they were getting pounded by the Germans. With what Germany did to Poland and France nobody at the time thought Germany didn't have a chance to win. In the game the Soviet player knows that he can lose Moscow, Leningrad, and Rostov and as long as he evac'd his Arm pts and didn't get his army pounded he's still in good shape. Had that happened in real life the Soviets would have been in deep trouble. Would the Japanese still attack the US if both Moscow and Leningrad had fallen before Dec 7th? We don't know but they may have hit the SU, waited longer to see what would happen or still hit the US. With the Soviets not surrendering would Hitler still have declared war on the US if Japan attacked? If Japan didn't join in at that point the odds are they never would have. Hitler may have realized that he didn't want to add the US to his two front war with no possibility of causing a two front war for the Soviets. If he doesn't, does the US still declare war on Germany? FDR wanted to get into the war, but getting it through congress was something they were very worried about until Hitler solved that problem. These things could have had major impacts on how the rest of the war played out.

I would like to see a possibility for the Soviet side to surrender if they lose Moscow. I would like to see the percentage increase if Leningrad is also in German hands and how early major cities fell along with a factor for shape of each army. I also wouldn't tell the players what those percentages were. This would create uncertainty. Would give the Germans a reason to push because they might be able to finish the Soviets off. Forces the Soviets to defend because they wouldn't know that as long as their army is intact and the arm factories are gone they don't need to worry about cities. This would also give the Germans an incentive to attack in 42 instead of forting up. The Soviets would want to push the Germans as far from vital cities as possible in the winter. I think this would make for a better game even if the percentage chance is small.

_____________________________

Come back with your shield or on it.

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 68

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 4:30:10 PM

Mehring

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

BleedingOrange, your alternative history is built on fundamental misunderstandings of what actually happened and why. It was already apparent by July 1941 to elements of the German high command that they were not going to destroy the Russian army west of the Dnepr-Dvina, which was the basic premise of Barbarossa. This was critical to knocking Russia out of the war, in turn, critical to enabling a reorientation of Germany to face the US which they regarded, rightly, as already being virtually at war with Germany. Hitler's prime objective was in any case, the USA, which he rightly saw as the greatest challenge to his German dominated European Empire.

Japan had a new political leadership and an expansionist trajectory in some part directed south by their experience getting drubbed by your not too impressive Russian army, at Khalkhin-Gol. From Germany's perspective the Japanese attack gave them another year to finish what they had failed in 1941. You need to study the political relations between Germany and Japan and their relations to other powers to understand why Pearl harbour was virtually inevitable and that, had it not occured, the USA would soon have openly joined the war anyway. Study Trotsky, too, on the inevitability of the US entering the war to gain unrestricted access to world markets for its capital.

The sort of 'what if?' scenarios you present make endless cash for the authors of historical novelettes which selectively weave superficial evidence and hearsay into something seldom too readable, less still, cogent alternatives to the accomplished historical fact.

_____________________________

�Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.�
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to BleedingOrange)

Post #: 69

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 5:36:58 PM

BleedingOrange

Posts: 31
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

Mehring, are you saying that Stalin could never have been removed from power no matter how badly the war went? If you are then it is you who have the fundamental misunderstanding. We don't know what would have happened is what I said. Could the Soviet government have surrendered with the loss of their capital and Stalin being removed with the condition the country would have been in at that point? Yes they could have. Countries have surrendered without their army being destroyed because their will to continue is defeated. Would it have happened, since it didn't we will never know.

The US wanted to get into the war but unless you know nothing of the US you would know that Congress declares war and FDR was unsure he could get them to declare on Germany. That is why he was trying to provoke the Japanese with a threat of Oil embargo and protecting British shipping in the Atlantic. Even after the Japanese attack on PH congress still had to vote to declare war and did but it wasn't unanimous. If Hitler (who was erractic) decided that he wanted to finish the two wars he had going before inviting in the US it is possible that Congress may not have been able to muster the votes to declare war on Germany.

The Japanese may still have attacked PH, but there is nothing that says it had to have happened on Dec 7th. They may have decided that with as weak as the Soviets looked in that situation to hit them first.

To think that because it happened that way it's the only way it could have happened is foolish. The what ifs are the reason people play this game. Everyone knows the historical facts of who won and what the results are.

_____________________________

Come back with your shield or on it.

(in reply to Mehring)

Post #: 70

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 6:09:32 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange
Would the Japanese still attack the US if both Moscow and Leningrad had fallen before Dec 7th? We don't know but they may have hit the SU, waited longer to see what would happen or still hit the US. With the Soviets not surrendering would Hitler still have declared war on the US if Japan attacked? If Japan didn't join in at that point the odds are they never would have. Hitler may have realized that he didn't want to add the US to his two front war with no possibility of causing a two front war for the Soviets. If he doesn't, does the US still declare war on Germany? FDR wanted to get into the war, but getting it through congress was something they were very worried about until Hitler solved that problem. These things could have had major impacts on how the rest of the war played out.

The oil Japan desperately needed was in the south (Dutch East Indies) not in northeast mainland Asia -Russian Far East- (ok, petrol in northern part of Sakhalin Island, controlled by the Soviets; Japanese controlled the south of the island).

Even after the 7 december, when in theory the Japanese had already chosen a southern path, which meant war against the US and allies, the Japanese (and the Turks) could have very well attacked the USSR had the Moscow counter-offensive been a fiasco. At least that's what V. D. Sokolovsky, Marshall of the Soviet Union, wrote. The Japanese were not keeping a strong army there (Kwantung Army) without a good reason. Well, it's also true that the thing the Imperial Japanese Army feared the most was the Red Army: the Khalkhin Gol thing (with an unknown Zhukov in charge). He was lucky he had survived the purges

quote:

I would like to see a possibility for the Soviet side to surrender if they lose Moscow.

I hope you find a Soviet opponent... Well, one thing is certain, the Soviets were building many fortifications around Moscow, included defensive lines east of Moscow. So it looks like losing the city was already calculated... war continues... Most people are blinded by this "capital" thing. Leningrad was more important. It's after the revolution that Moscow is artificially made more important

This of course also explains why the Soviets were stubborn and wanted to keep Leningrad... which falls in every game by the way. Not that the Germans need lots of forces...

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 11/14/2011 6:12:12 PM >

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to BleedingOrange)

Post #: 71

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 6:56:07 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

While I agree that the Sovs almost certainly would not have surrendered if Moscow had fallen, the fact is that in war no one knows really knows what could happen, but in wargames everyone knows exactly what might, or might not happen. This certainty in itself is very unrealistic.

The Sovs certainly took the defense of Moscow very very seriously, more so than would seem justified by the in-game consequences, surely they did so for some intangible reason which is not reflected in-game.

For these reasons, I think it is reasonable to include some chance for Sov collapse/surrender if Moscow falls, although it should certainly be a small chance.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 72

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 7:09:08 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

The funny thing about this sort of hypothetical "Moscow captured = I win, suckeeeers!

" is that Barbarossa would be some sort of massive push � la Pelton (his curent moves to grab industrial centers would be the moves of a mere aficionado)... with weak (or almost irrelevant) forces in AGN and AGS (sec regiments would be perfect if you ask me)... I'd like to see such an AAR. To have a good laugh that is

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 73

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 7:36:25 PM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange

Even after the Japanese attack on PH congress still had to vote to declare war and did but it wasn't unanimous.

It was almost unanimous. There was only a dissenting vote from an old pacifist lady.

Huge military operations cannot be planned in a couple of months: with the decision of �going south� already taken by Japan it seems unthinkable that they could reverse everything to attack north had Moscow fallen. And in fact, as pointed out by Mehring, the Japanese were indeed very impressed by the Red Army, a factor that could influence their decision to go south

But I do not think (and I gently disagree here with Mehring) that Pearl Harbour was itself inevitable. That particular operation was a personal gamble from Yamamoto, which was met with opposition by many at the top of the Japanese military hierarchy. A direct attack towards the South even attacking the Philippines but skipping Pearl Harbour could conceivably have caused much less outrage at the USA and perhaps the Congress could have voted against war. It can be argued that it was the Pearl Harbour raid that made that possibility impossible.

More to the topic, it seems very difficult that the Soviet Union could have ever surrendered in formal terms, given the fate the Nazis had prepared for the Slavic peoples in general and their communist leaders in particular. Never-ending guerrilla warfare beyond the Urals once the Archangelsk-Astrakhan line was reached is a more plausible scenario (and one that was preferred by Hitler himself to maintain German �will of fight�). In game terms it is obviously �game over�, but it is a very different issue compared to an event-triggered Russian surrender. If it did not happen before August, it will not happen afterwards.

And even more to the topic, to the very thread topic. I find the idea of optional rules very healthy, but it seems to me that players are not willing to depart of what is considered �official�. A sudden death option would be appropriate for those situations when one considers that the game is over and that the other player is just being obstinate. But I recall seeing here in this same forum a player declaring himself �winner� and ending the game without much ado...

(in reply to BleedingOrange)

Post #: 74

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 7:50:47 PM

Mehring

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange

Mehring, are you saying that Stalin could never have been removed from power no matter how badly the war went? If you are then it is you who have the fundamental misunderstanding. We don't know what would have happened is what I said. Could the Soviet government have surrendered with the loss of their capital and Stalin being removed with the condition the country would have been in at that point? Yes they could have. Countries have surrendered without their army being destroyed because their will to continue is defeated. Would it have happened, since it didn't we will never know.

The US wanted to get into the war but unless you know nothing of the US you would know that Congress declares war and FDR was unsure he could get them to declare on Germany. That is why he was trying to provoke the Japanese with a threat of Oil embargo and protecting British shipping in the Atlantic. Even after the Japanese attack on PH congress still had to vote to declare war and did but it wasn't unanimous. If Hitler (who was erractic) decided that he wanted to finish the two wars he had going before inviting in the US it is possible that Congress may not have been able to muster the votes to declare war on Germany.

The Japanese may still have attacked PH, but there is nothing that says it had to have happened on Dec 7th. They may have decided that with as weak as the Soviets looked in that situation to hit them first.

To think that because it happened that way it's the only way it could have happened is foolish. The what ifs are the reason people play this game. Everyone knows the historical facts of who won and what the results are.

I have never argued that there are no possible alternatives to the way things turned out. Never. But the alternatives are constrained by the general dynamics of history, the inner contadictions of the society in question. Nowhere do these dynamics figure in your suppositions.

Stalin could have died from flu, it would have made no difference. If you want to reduce history to the level of individuals, if ever there was a replaceable mediocrity in a position of absolute power (and on a deeper level, impotence, but that's another story) it was Stalin. Russia was able to evacuate most of its industries and was in a position to prosecute a war from well beyond the German's logistical reach. Russian surrender was even less a real possibility than a negotiated peace between Britain and Germany, whoever was in charge.

Your view of the Japanese options bear no relation to their situation, as both I and the venerable Mr Detritus have already pointed out. Further, Germany was not pushing on her ally to attack Russia, but to attack the US. Germany, which did fear Japan coming to some agreament with the US, had proposed to Japan prior to Barbarossa, a joint declaration of war against the US. When this began to look likely, in October 1941, the offer was repeated. Had Japan attacked Russia instead of the west, it would not only have little to gain but another 1939 style drubbing, but would only have hastened the fall of Germany. It would have left European possessions and interests in the Pacific untouched, the Royal Navy undivided, and US industry able to concentrate on Germany.

Oh! But we have no Pearl, and no declaration of war, you object. Is that really a problem or are you only prepared to entertain 'what ifs' that are quite ungrounded in reality?

Is it not remarkable that in spite of constitutional formalities, FDR had managed to manoeuvre the US into a position that, long before Pearl Harbour, the Germans regarded as a virtual state of war? The immense military output of the US witnessed from 1943 onwards was not the product of a surprised power turning reluctantly to fight a war it had no choice but to fight. It was the result of military-industrial infrastructure laid down years before, in preparation for the inevitable war. I'm sure some student of American history can draw up a list for you, of legislation passed in the US which both economically and politically prepared the US for war, and specifically with Germany. The Germans weren't blind to it, or to the war materials already coming into Briain's possession.

As you point out, Roosevelt provoked Japan into an attack. Do you think that had Adolf not obliged, he would have been unable to do the same with Germany? Was he not already doing so? Given the incredible mobilisation of US industry for war during 'peace' and the US's comitment to excusively supply the anti-Axis forces, do you really think that shifting the date of a formal war declaration 6 months or even a year in either way would have made any serious difference?

There are many, of course, who derive pleasure from flights of fancy as opposed to simulation or what really might have been had history taken another turn. I have no problem with that, as long as when those flights concern the real world, they are acknowledged for what they are. It is when the impossible is served up as a viable alternative course of history that I object. It muddles the head and obscures the understanding of what I regard most valuable from the past. How we got where we are.

But I recall seeing here in this same forum a player declaring himself �winner� and ending the game without much ado... And you know what? I didn't need a sudden death button to do it.

< Message edited by Mehring -- 11/14/2011 7:53:22 PM >

_____________________________

�Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.�
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to BleedingOrange)

Post #: 75

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 7:58:46 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso
But I do not think (and I gently disagree here with Mehring) that Pearl Harbour was itself inevitable. That particular operation was a personal gamble from Yamamoto, which was met with opposition by many at the top of the Japanese military hierarchy. A direct attack towards the South even attacking the Philippines but skipping Pearl Harbour could conceivably have caused much less outrage at the USA and perhaps the Congress could have voted against war. It can be argued that it was the Pearl Harbour raid that made that possibility impossible.

I am not following you here, Alfonso

Attacking the Philipines = American possession = American personnel

It's an act of war. Ergo... The other option (which was of course discarded) was NOT attacking the Philipines in the first place. Which was really dangerous. From this position the Americans could have blocked the flow of raw marterials and OIL the Japanese desperately needed... It's not only the Formosa Strait, they would have created a really big mess

In fact Pearl Harbor was precisely a consequence of the above said: Philipines can't be left behind = strike Americans = destroy or neutralize American fleet (Pearl Harbor) so that they can't help on the first months...

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 76

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 8:20:32 PM

wosung

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

1. Frankly I just don�t see a quick & dirty "Japan strikes Russia in 1941 because of Barbarossa". Japanese planning for the Pacific War happened in summer 1941, when Barbarossa just started. Japanese foreign policy towards Russia often was one step behind the German one. Japan was not pre-informed about Barbarossa plans. The Pacific war, first & mostly was a IJN thing. IJA had enough action in China. Power balance between them two was a delicate thing. �

2. Whether Soviet Russia would have collapsed in the wake of a more successful Barbarossa, arguably is outside of WitE�s scope. Because WiTE just does not model the Stalinist regime as such. Barbarossa was Blitzkrieg - successful against small to medium sized Western European democracies - reloaded against a vast Eastern dictatorship. Not exactly the same setting.

�
3. Most important: Arguably it will be difficult at all to find Russian players, who agree to play a nine month sudden death match. The whole concept is against Russian strengths & style of warfare.
�
Regards

< Message edited by wosung -- 11/14/2011 8:22:34 PM >

(in reply to Mehring)

Post #: 77

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 8:28:52 PM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso
But I do not think (and I gently disagree here with Mehring) that Pearl Harbour was itself inevitable. That particular operation was a personal gamble from Yamamoto, which was met with opposition by many at the top of the Japanese military hierarchy. A direct attack towards the South even attacking the Philippines but skipping Pearl Harbour could conceivably have caused much less outrage at the USA and perhaps the Congress could have voted against war. It can be argued that it was the Pearl Harbour raid that made that possibility impossible.

I am not following you here, Alfonso Attacking the Philipines = American possession = American personnel It's an act of war. Ergo... The other option (which was of course discarded) was NOT attacking the Philipines in the first place. Which was really dangerous. From this position the Americans could have blocked the flow of raw marterials and OIL the Japanese desperately needed... It's not only the Formosa Strait, they would have created a really big mess

In fact Pearl Harbor was precisely a consequence of the above said: Philipines can't be left behind = strike Americans = destroy or neutralize American fleet (Pearl Harbor) so that they can't help on the first months...

Yes, you are right here. I should have written "somehow neutralizing" instead of "even attacking". If I remember correctly, at that time Philippines was not exactly American territory, but some type of protectorate, which anyway was to be abandoned in a few years. Probably a less sensitive issue for the American people if handled carefully by the Japanese.

My point is that the concept of attacking south and attacking Pearl Harbour were separate decisions. The proof that it was conceivable to skip the Hawaii raids, is that, as a matter of fact, it was conceived. The fact that it was finally discarded by the Japanese (allegedly due to the personal drive by Yamamoto in support of attacking the Americans at Pearl Harbour) does not discard it as a plausible "what if" alternative.

(To which point were the Americans decided to pressure blockade without previous overt war declarations is open to debate)

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 78

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 9:35:20 PM

Mehring

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

"The United States ceded its sovereignty over the Philippines on July 4, 1946, as scheduled.[92][125] However, the Philippine economy remained highly dependent on United States markets� more dependent, according to United States high commissioner Paul McNutt, than any single U.S. state was dependent on the rest of the country.[126] The Philippine Trade Act, passed as a precondition for receiving war rehabilitation grants from the United States,[127] exacerbated the dependency with provisions further tying the economies of the two countries. A military assistance pact was signed in 1947 granting the United States a 99-year lease on designated military bases in the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines

Strange sort of independence. Just colonialism with local rule. Would that have been possible wirth the Japanese in control? No, there was a fundamental conflict of imperial interests.

< Message edited by Mehring -- 11/14/2011 9:36:23 PM >

_____________________________

�Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.�
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 79

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/14/2011 10:20:23 PM

BleedingOrange

Posts: 31
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

In no particular order

1. FDR needed the Japanese or Germans to actually attack the US to get them into the war. He ran his 39-40 Presidential campaign on not sending US troops to fight foreign wars. So without Japan attacking PH the US can build all the war materails they want but there is no 8th AF bombing Germany.

2. If the Japanese decided to redirect their efforts against the Soviets nobody says it had to be immediately. They could have postponed PH and drew up plans to see what unfolded. If the Soviets recover launch PH later and maybe catch the carriers there. If the Soviets continue to lose, launch an attack and try to take advantage of a weakened foe.

3. I stated in my first post I don't think Stalin ever would have surrendered. There were people in the government that were more then willing to fight on after the loss of Moscow, but would those people have gained power? It might have been almost impossible for it to happen, but stranger things have happened.

4. You might have people like Pelton race for certain targets but if they didn't succeed they would lose. Right now he doesn't even try for Leningrad or Moscow. Without something to encourage a defense by the SU or a reason to attack in 42 for the Germans the game is going to continue to look like a WW1 simulation.

_____________________________

Come back with your shield or on it.

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 80

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/15/2011 10:29:36 AM

Mehring

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange

In no particular order

1. FDR needed the Japanese or Germans to actually attack the US to get them into the war. He ran his 39-40 Presidential campaign on not sending US troops to fight foreign wars. So without Japan attacking PH the US can build all the war materails they want but there is no 8th AF bombing Germany.

Already answered, but clearly you haven't got it. I will re-state with some emphasis added-

Oh! But we have no Pearl, and no declaration of war, you object. Is that really a problem or are you only prepared to entertain 'what ifs' that are quite ungrounded in reality?

Is it not remarkable that in spite of constitutional formalities, FDR had managed to manoeuvre the US into a position that, long before Pearl Harbour, the Germans regarded as a virtual state of war? The immense military output of the US witnessed from 1943 onwards was not the product of a surprised power turning reluctantly to fight a war it had no choice but to fight. It was the result of military-industrial infrastructure laid down years before, in preparation for the inevitable war. I'm sure some student of American history can draw up a list for you, of legislation passed in the US which both economically and politically prepared the US for war, and specifically with Germany. The Germans weren't blind to it, or to the war materials already coming into Briain's possession.

As you point out, Roosevelt provoked Japan into an attack. Do you think that had Adolf not obliged [when he did], he would have been unable to do the same with Germany? WAS HE NOT ALREADY DOING SO? Given the incredible mobilisation of US industry for war during 'peace' and the US's comitment to excusively supply the anti-Axis forces, do you really think that shifting the date of a formal war declaration 6 months or even a year in either way would have made any serious difference?

The US were engaging in undeclared war with Germany and pushing hard to provoke a Declaration of war.

When one deals in abstractions, one can declare the possiblity of anything that takes one's fancy. Concrete reality shows how limited were the options. below is a timeline for you. The incidents do not reveal directly the antagonistic interests motivating the conflict, but they do very much express them -

April 10, 1940 - President, acting under the Neutrality Act of 1939, extends maritime danger zone to include Scandinavian area.

May 16, 1940 - President asks for national defense funds totaling $1,182,000,000; he states that Army and Navy should be equipped with 50,000 aircraft a year.

May 17, 1940 - President announces plan for recommissioning 35 more destroyers.

June 12, 1940 - [us] Navy Department awards contracts for 22 new warships.

June 14, 1940 - Fri. President signs "11% Naval Expansion Act" increasing the carrier, cruiser, and submarine tonnage of the Navy by 167,000 tons, and auxiliary shipping by 75,000 tons.

June 15, 1940 - President approves an act to increase naval aviation to a strength of not more than 10,000 aircraft.

June 17, 1940 - Adm. H. R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, asks $4 billion for construction of "two-ocean Navy.

June 27, 1940 - President declares a "national emergency" and invokes Espionage Act of 1917 to exercise control over shipping movements in territorial waters and in vicinity of Panama Canal.

July 1, 1940 - German U-boats attack merchant ships in the Atlantic.

July 19, 1940 - President signs Naval Expansion Act providing, among other things, for 1,325,000 tons of combatant shipping, 100,000 tons of auxiliary shipping, and 15,000 aircraft; this "Two Ocean Navy" act will expand the Fleet 70 percent.

Aug 17, 1940 - Hitler declares a blockade of the British Isles.

Sept 16, 1940 - United States military conscription bill passed.

Sept 27, 1940 - Tripartite (Axis) Pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan.

Oct 8, 1940 - Unites States advises citizens to leave the Far East.
Japan protests United States embargo on aviation gasoline and scrap metal.

Nov 5, 1940 - Roosevelt re-elected as U.S. president.

Nov 8, 1940 - SS CITY OF RAYVILLE sinks after hitting a mine laid by German raider off Cape Otway, Bass Strait, Australia; first United States merchant vessel sunk in World War II.

Jan 29, 1941 - United States-British staff conversations to determine joint strategy in case of United States involvement in the war, begin in Washington.

Jan 30, 1941 - Germany announces that ships of any nationality bringing aid to Great Britain will be torpedoed.

March 11, 1941 - President Roosevelt signs the Lend-Lease Act.

March 30, 1941 - Unites States takes possession of German, Italian, and Danish ships in United States Ports.

April 27, 1941 - American-Dutch-British Conference at Singapore ends, having reached agreement on combined operating plan of local defense forces in the event of war with Japan; Capt. W. R. Purnell, USN, is senior United States representative.

June 14, 1941 - United States freezes German and Italian assets in America.

June 19, 1941 - Germany and Italy request closure of United States consulates.

June 21, 1941 - State department requests closing of all Italian consulates in United States territory.

June 2, 1941 - Japan recalls her merchant ships from Atlantic Ocean, and calls more than 1 million army conscripts.

July 26, 1941 - Roosevelt freezes Japanese assets in United States and suspends relations.

Aug 1, 1941 - United States announces an oil embargo against aggressor states.

Aug 14, 1941 - Roosevelt and Churchill announce the Atlantic Charter.

Aug 27, 1941 - Japan protests shipment of United States goods to Vladivostok through Japanese waters.

Sept 7, 1941 - United States merchant ship STEEL SEAFARER is sunk by German air attack in Gulf of Suez.

Oct 17, 1941 - Destroyer KEARNY (DD-432)is torpedoed and damaged southwest of Iceland.
Navy orders all United States merchantmen in Asiatic waters to put into friendly ports.
Gen. Hideki Tojo becomes Japanese Premier as Konoye Government resigns.

Oct 19, 1941 - United States merchant ship LEHIGH is torpedoed and sunk by German submarine off West Africa.

Oct 31, 1941 - Destroyer REUBEN JAMES (DD-245) is torpedoed and sinks off western Iceland with loss of about 100 lives; this is the first United States naval vessel to be lost by enemy action in World War II.

Nov 8, 1941 - United States Naval Operating Base, Iceland, is established.

Nov 17, 1941 - Neutrality Act of 1939 is amended by Joint Resolution; merchant ships can now be armed and enter war zones. Saburo Kurusu, special Japanese envoy, arrives in Washington and confers with the Secretary of State.

Nov 20, 1941 - Ambassador Nomura presents Japan's "final proposal" to keep peace in the Pacific.

Nov 23, 1941 - United States occupies Surinam, Dutch Guiana, pursuant to agreement with the Netherlands government to protect bauxite mines.

Nov 25, 1941 - Japanese troop transports, en route to Malaya, are sighted off Formosa.

Nov 26, 1941 - Secretary of State submits final proposals to Japanese envoys for readjustment of United States-Japanese relations.

Nov 27, 1941 - Adm. H. R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, sends "war warning" message to commanders of the Pacific and Asiatic Fleets.

Nov 30, 1941 - Japanese Foreign Minister Tojo rejects United States
proposals for settling Far Eastern crisis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange2. If the Japanese decided to redirect their efforts against the Soviets nobody says it had to be immediately. They could have postponed PH and drew up plans to see what unfolded. If the Soviets recover launch PH later and maybe catch the carriers there. If the Soviets continue to lose, launch an attack and try to take advantage of a weakened foe.

Yes, that works in a lot of war games where the military side of things is completely abstracted from economic and political concreteness, which, in reality drives the military. Could they have postponed it? What on earth makes you think they had such freedom of action? Do you really think that nations embark on wars that threaten their very existance out of whims and and at their will? In relation to concrete reality your alternative history is nothing but air headed nonsense. Sorry, but it 's true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange3. I stated in my first post I don't think Stalin ever would have surrendered. There were people in the government that were more then willing to fight on after the loss of Moscow, but would those people have gained power? It might have been almost impossible for it to happen, but stranger things have happened.

There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. We will control the horizontal. We will control the verticle. We can change the focus to a soft blur....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange4. You might have people like Pelton race for certain targets but if they didn't succeed they would lose. Right now he doesn't even try for Leningrad or Moscow. Without something to encourage a defense by the SU or a reason to attack in 42 for the Germans the game is going to continue to look like a WW1 simulation.

It's not an all sided simulation of anything at the moment. There are design flaws which appear to have been recognised and will not be remedied by gamey fudges. Logistics, and the air war are two aspects of the game that need a major overhaul and until they get it, we might as well just enjoy the game for what it is or wait for a fix.

_____________________________

�Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.�
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to BleedingOrange)

Post #: 81

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/15/2011 1:22:17 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

Japan was on the path to be committed to war with the US after they went into Indo-China and the embargo hit them as a result in July 1941. The US finally had something that was going to cause Japan to attack them since the embargo put them on the clock. Tojo did not come to power until October and war was not approved until November and confirmed as of December 1, 1941. Japan was also very aware of the US ship building program and realized they would be hopelessly outnumbered by no later than 1944.

(in reply to Mehring)

Post #: 82

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/15/2011 2:12:19 PM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

The question is, should there be options for an alternative end to the campaign. This is a game and as such it has to provide enjoyable entertainment, at this end of the gaming business it needs to attract as many customers as possible. Great games do not grow on trees, it needs hard cash .

'No campaign plan survives first contact with the enemy', differing circumstance provoke the possibility of changed plans and it is upon this that the what-if scenario is based.

What-if on the 24th May 1940, when Hitler visited von Rundsedt's HQ at Charleville, to discover that 4th Armee with its preponderance of panzer and motorised divisions was to be transferrd to AGB, he had changed his mind. The transfer was intended to circumvent Rundstedt and Kliest's conservative attitude and the 'close up' order of the 23rd May, which had already halted the German mobile units (at a time when they were closer to the Dunkirk beaches than most of the retreating Allied forces). Hitler, angered at not being consulted, decided to rescind the transfer and declared approval for Rundstedt's follow-up 'halt' order. I believe he did this to reassert his supremacy over his immediate subordinates, Halder and von Brauchitsch, despite the resulting impact on the strategic situation. - Yes, Hitler was the prisoner of his ideology, prejudices, arrogance, his relationship with his mother, etc., etc., etc., into boring ad infinitum, but what if he had changed his mind, intending to maximise the military situation and then deal with his subordinates later, an easy thing to have done.

The same conflicts were to re-appear during Barbarossa, with similar detriment to the military situation. The initial British prediction of the possibility of saving only 45,000 allied troops would have been realised. Britain would not have had the morale boost of the 'victory' at Dunkirk, hundreds of thousands of British troops, instead of re-organising for defence, would have gone into captivity, with the corrosive effect of plaintive letters to their families and Goebles full use of newreels to ram the message home.

The smart move would then to have not launched a bombing offensive, but massive fighter sweeps over Southern England, to wear down Fighter Command, and show the failure of British policy, at little cost to the Luftwaffe.

There is a reasonable prospect that this might have provoked a change of British government, prepared to enter into negotiation with Germany and then .........

This may be fit for a novelette, but why should this not be a plausable scenario, Japan benefits from the Axis side of the agreement and obtains access to raw materials from the former Allies' South-east Asia possessions 'peacefully'.

This is long before Pearl Harbor is cast in stone and would the US then attempt to interdict this peaceful trade?

It has been said that Japan would not dare to attack Russia, due to respect for their military prowess at Kaklin-Gol, but they did dare to attack the US, despite its glaringly obvious huge industrial might. Who's to say what they might have done under different circumstances?

There is scope for plausable options that will provide something more to play for, than merely running a drag race down the same track, just to see if you can get into Berlin in this, or that month.

Why the angst, it's only an option, everyone should be able to get what they want out of the game, this is a win, win situation.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 11/15/2011 2:16:05 PM >

_____________________________

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

�A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything� - Napoleon

�Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon

(in reply to Mehring)

Post #: 83

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/15/2011 4:44:12 PM

wosung

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

So how many of you guys want to play the Russian side with sudden death optinal rules?

Regards

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 84

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/15/2011 5:34:34 PM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

In fact, we already have a set of "Sudden Death" rules, it is called the "Barbarossa" Scenario! It either ends in timely fashion with Axis victory, or not. Fair of course: Axis can either achieve Sudden Death, or it fails and Soviets win early. Not an "I-win" button at least. Perhaps for people like me that are too tied up for a full GC PBEM, a match of two subsequent stock scenarios, i.e first Barbarossa, and then the Bagration 1944 to end, might be an interesting alternative. Then both sides can have the experience of wielding their Armies at their best times?� However, the number of Axis players who would play a 1944-end scenario might also be negligible.�

Otherwise offering Sudden Death rules is something more reserved for a small group of people, and best done in the form of house rules by mutual agreement between two players since it would be based purely on a speculative "what if".� In a GC, the most I would concede when playing Soviet would be a "honorable mention to have excelled on the offensive", and that "thereby a certain probability might exist for a Soviet breakdown"; perhaps award him some extra VPs for the honor. Breakdown would probably only have occurred if the Panzer divisions had reached the base of the Urals while simultaneously the Red Army would just be a skeleton of its former self -- so unless that happened, the game should continue...

< Message edited by janh -- 11/15/2011 5:36:33 PM >

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 85

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/15/2011 8:20:22 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

So how many of you guys want to play the Russian side with sudden death optinal rules?

Regards

I can't understand why anyone would want to play German in the current game. But that's just me my lack of understanding other gamers attitudes runs much deeper than that.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 86

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/15/2011 8:22:52 PM

BleedingOrange

Posts: 31
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

There is a huge difference in virtual state of war and an actual one. A virtual one is US ships escorting British shipping in the Atlantic and an actual one is bombers over Germany. The 2nd wasn't going to happen without a declaration of war that congress was not willing to give even after the sinking of the USS Rueben James.

Yes I do think that 6 months would have made a difference. The Republicans were looking into impeaching FDR for abuse of power due to the incidents involving the USS Greer, USS Kearny, and the USS Rueben James. Those plans were dropped after PH. Had they started impeachment proceedings it's possible that the oil embargo would have been lifted and America could have moved back to a more neutral stance. This would probably include stopping Lend Lease.

< Message edited by BleedingOrange -- 11/15/2011 9:25:43 PM >

_____________________________

Come back with your shield or on it.

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 87

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/15/2011 8:36:30 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

So how many of you guys want to play the Russian side with sudden death optinal rules?

Regards

Depending on how it is set up, I don't have an issue as long as you don't mind playing with the German sudden death rules for the spring of 42 either.

The track meet for both sides needs to stop at some point.

< Message edited by Klydon -- 11/15/2011 8:37:37 PM >

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 88

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/15/2011 10:50:41 PM

Mehring

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange

There is a huge difference in virtual state of war and an actual one. A virtual one is US ships escorting British shipping in the Atlantic and an actual one is bombers over Germany. The 2nd wasn't going to happen without a declaration of war that congress was not willing to give even after the sinking of the USS Rueben James.

Yes I do think that 6 months would have made a difference. The Republicans were looking into impeaching FDR for abuse of power due to the incidents involving the USS Greer, USS Kearny, and the USS Rueben James. Those plans were dropped after PH. Had they started impeachment proceedings it's possible that the oil embargo would have been lifted and America could have moved back to a more neutral stance. This would probably include stopping Lend Lease.

Must someone point out to you that there is a huge difference between looking into impeaching FDR, and an actual impeachment? Tell us what happened to the Republican move to impeach FDR in 1935? Ironic, that you give such weight to hot air while denying the tangible preparations for war and gargantuan shifts in the economy that they entailed.

Your distinction between virtual war and war as facile, to say the least. War does not come from nowhere. Sometimes an invasion or declaration of war may seem to come out of the blue but somewhere there is an observable quantitative buildup of tension, perhaps even internally and not overtly involving the victim of agression. The time line I have shown you demonstrates a quantitative increase in belligerence and preparations for war. At what exact point that quantitative increase changes quality, tipping from one state to another, can only be determined absolutely in hindsight, there are too many variables for precision. But the general outline can be determined. It is clear and irefutable and the eventual declaration of war coresponds not only with the quantitative escalation but also the interests of all conflicting parties.

The US was laying down military-industrial infrastructure from, latest, mid 1940, ordering war materials and conscripting men into the services. They went ahead both in virtual war and after the declaration of war. Their fruit was not evident in war winning proportions until 1943, somewhat more than a year after the US was officially at war. They would have been accumulating and the services organising whether the US were at war or not. Therefore, as I stated, it made no difference whether the US joined the war in 1940 or 1943. The effectiveness of its involvement was determined by its industrial preparations bearing fruit.

I have a scenario to join your 'what ifs?' mod, and I insist that it be included.

Hitler Has An Epiphany
In October 1941, Hitler suddenly realises that he will feel really bad if the Wehrmacht's plans to starve millions of Russians and Jews to death actually goes ahead. Rations for the front are halved, also industrial output as hungry workers cannot work effectively. Reduce all resource, vehicle and armaments production by half until next harvest.

Throw a die. on 1-2, the war continues as above. 3-6 Hitler throws in the towel and kills himself out of guilt for all the trouble he's caused.

It's about as likely as what you suggest. After all, you know Himmler was really upset when he saw a load of jews being shot, he was physically sick, you know, sensitive fellow, it could have turned him around, and he would have gone to talk to Hitler and anything could have happened.

< Message edited by Mehring -- 11/15/2011 10:52:02 PM >

_____________________________

�Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.�
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to BleedingOrange)

Post #: 89

RE: Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal - 11/16/2011 4:02:25 AM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

No way the US stops lend lease. It was simply too good for business and had millions working in ship yards, aircraft factories, and elsewhere filling war contracts for foreign countries.

The other thing you have to consider is the Japanese got permission from the Vichy government to enter Indo-China. They did not invade. The US still flipped out and got the embargo in place. With the conditions in place that not only must Japan pull out of Indo-China (that may have been possible), but that she must also leave China among other things (that was never going to happen without a fight, which is what FDR was counting on), then Japan was really stuck from the standpoint of where to get oil.

(in reply to Mehring)

Post #: 90