quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

Why must we always play WW2 historically? Why can't Germany not invade Poland, and instead attack France Sept 1 1939? Why should the French sit on t heir borders and not attack a weak Germany occupied with battle in Poland? Why can't Russia decide not to honor the treaties with Germany and invade from thea east? What if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor? The U.S. would likely not have come into the war until much later...

It's rather dull after a while (playing AXIS for example) to attack Poland, then Denmark/Norway, then Low Countries and France, then BoB, attack Egypt, send in Afrika Korps, attack Yugo, etc etc.

Which is why diplomacy, random events (as an option), and other factors could make a strategic level WW2 game fun again.

I agree with most things.

Hitler and Stalin were opportunists.

One of the main criticisms of France and Britain was that they did nothing when Germany attacked Poland.

In addition, had Stalin attacked Germany when it was engaged in France in 1940, I think events would have been quite interesting.

For these reasons, I think there should be opportunity costs for actions taken by the Axis.

For example. If Germany attacks Poland, then Allied war effort should increase for all countries concerned (France, Britain, USA, etc). The more countries Germany attacks, the higher the war footing AND the resources/troops the Allied countries should start to receive (via events and NOT through production).

If Germany doesn't guard its border with France then MAYBE the French might invade it.

If Germany is stalemated in France or if it takes longer than it did historically, then the USSR MIGHT (random %) strike first, or at least build up its troop levels.

If Germany is attacking neutral nations then other neutral nations should adjust their position accordingly - increase spending on military, start warming to the Allies, etc....

Randomness (on a % basis) should be built into the game where it makes sense historically to do so. This will help keep the player on his toes.

Many of these things have already been done in games such as SC.

Just a short remark here. It's clear that you have to make up your mind whether you want to have a hypothetical WWII, or have one more close to history. I say that because the USA is a special case. Remember that she was isolationist, and didn't gear up because Poland was invaded. If there was much gearing up at all before Pearl Harbor, it probably wasn't (guessing) until the Battle for Britain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

"If" functions are bollocks IMO.

spain and Turkey were not goign to enter the war short of beign invaded - both their leaders were completely opposed to it under any circumstances - in Turkey's case it was engrained in them by Attaturk - "peace at home, peace worldwide" so you have to assasinate Attaturk some time about 1918 to justify it........

but hey - you always have the option of invading them to bring them in - and it's realistic[:D][:D]

Wargamers who wonder what would have happened had Germany gotten Caucasian oil - well it did get it. It got it at Maikop and other places.....and guess what....it took ages to come on line, and it was too far away with a too-fragile supply line to be of significant use! But hen Germany wasn't actually SHORT of oil all that much until late 1944.....and then as a result of bombing and it had already lost the war!!

Ah - but lack of Mid-east oil would cripple the RN, nd lack of Caucasian oil would cripple hte USSR.......nope. USA is producign enough oil for the entire war effort of BOTH sides.......unless you have Germany taking out Texas there's no effect on the allied war effort at all!

Oil changes the war? Nope....note one bit.

quote:

So I would assume from what you have said that you must NEVER play variant scenarios that are included with most wargames, because they are different from the historical version.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

So I would assume from what you have said that you must NEVER play variant scenarios that are included with most wargames, because they are different from the historical version.

Making assumptions is generally a silly thing to do - especially about people and events you know nothing about.

I enjoy variants - as long as they are based in reality. "Ralistic" what-if's make games more interesting for sure.

Fantasy ones such as those being suggested on here are boring IMO - they're typically based on simplistic assumptions which, as I said, are silly.

By all means have Spain enter the war - Franco gave hitler a price tag - "all" he had to do was meet it. If you have a game where Hitler is given that choice then fine. But if all he has to do is spend a few points on "diplomatic" intervention then forget it.

by all means have Sea Lion - as long as the RN can base its destroyers outside fighter escort range and has 3 days to attack the transports anchored of the South English coast and you're prepared to take the hit on the continental economy from losing all that shipping and on German prestige from losing those 300,000 of it's best veterans........

by all means have Germany not invade Poland....oops....except then we dont' actually have WW2....damn.........[8|][:D][:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

Why must we always play WW2 historically? Why can't Germany not invade Poland, and instead attack France Sept 1 1939? Why should the French sit on t heir borders and not attack a weak Germany occupied with battle in Poland? Why can't Russia decide not to honor the treaties with Germany and invade from thea east? What if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor? The U.S. would likely not have come into the war until much later...

It's rather dull after a while (playing AXIS for example) to attack Poland, then Denmark/Norway, then Low Countries and France, then BoB, attack Egypt, send in Afrika Korps, attack Yugo, etc etc.

Which is why diplomacy, random events (as an option), and other factors could make a strategic level WW2 game fun again.

I agree with most things.

Hitler and Stalin were opportunists.

One of the main criticisms of France and Britain was that they did nothing when Germany attacked Poland.

In addition, had Stalin attacked Germany when it was engaged in France in 1940, I think events would have been quite interesting.

For these reasons, I think there should be opportunity costs for actions taken by the Axis.

For example. If Germany attacks Poland, then Allied war effort should increase for all countries concerned (France, Britain, USA, etc). The more countries Germany attacks, the higher the war footing AND the resources/troops the Allied countries should start to receive (via events and NOT through production).

If Germany doesn't guard its border with France then MAYBE the French might invade it.

If Germany is stalemated in France or if it takes longer than it did historically, then the USSR MIGHT (random %) strike first, or at least build up its troop levels.

If Germany is attacking neutral nations then other neutral nations should adjust their position accordingly - increase spending on military, start warming to the Allies, etc....

Randomness (on a % basis) should be built into the game where it makes sense historically to do so. This will help keep the player on his toes.

Many of these things have already been done in games such as SC.

Just a short remark here. It's clear that you have to make up your mind whether you want to have a hypothetical WWII, or have one more close to history. I say that because the USA is a special case. Remember that she was isolationist, and didn't gear up because Poland was invaded. If there was much gearing up at all before Pearl Harbor, it probably wasn't (guessing) until the Battle for Britain.

Hi.

I am very clear what I am seeking.

Many events in WWII often turned on a dime: Hitler not taking Dunkirk before the evacuation; Spain remaining neutral; Hitler not reinforcing Rommel in North Africa...., etc...

"Alternative" actions for these events and more are historically plausible. They add flavour to a game of WWII without being outlandish or unhistorical. And they could be included as toggle options.

If Germany attacks Poland, war footing should increase for the Allies. The USA starting gearing up fairly early.

Hitler tried to woe Spain into the war, but Franco didn't care for the terms. Hitler wanted the Japanese to attack the USSR in Siberia and the Port of Vladivostock, but they concluded a pact with the USSR instead and opted to push south.

These are all historically plausible.

I don't want Holland to take over the world, and I don't want Italy to become a superpower. But I feel that most people who have read a bit of WWII history are fully aware of the many IFs that could have occurred had the conditions been correct, or if certain leaders had made different decisions.

These options could be presented as toggles to allow the player to flavour or spice up his game. Do you allow for Siberian reinforcements? Present it as an option. Do you allow for a % chance of Spain joining the Axis? Present it as an option. Etc...

These options and many more provide for re-playability.... while keeping things historical....

It would be pretty boring if every game played the exact same way...

Cheers!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

Whatever you do don't touch the convoy values. Adding a 'isolationist USA' option is pointless. Anyway didn't the UK have to pay for everything they got from the USA? Its what bankrupted the UK and I think we are still paying off the dept?

Also beware of a Japan first option. Roosevelt knew who the most dangerous enemy was, Germany!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

Whatever you do don't touch the convoy values. Adding a 'isolationist USA' option is pointless. Anyway didn't the UK have to pay for everything they got from the USA? Its what bankrupted the UK and I think we are still paying off the dept?

Also beware of a Japan first option. Roosevelt knew who the most dangerous enemy was, Germany!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

Why must we always play WW2 historically? Why can't Germany not invade Poland, and instead attack France Sept 1 1939? Why should the French sit on t heir borders and not attack a weak Germany occupied with battle in Poland? Why can't Russia decide not to honor the treaties with Germany and invade from thea east? What if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor? The U.S. would likely not have come into the war until much later...

It's rather dull after a while (playing AXIS for example) to attack Poland, then Denmark/Norway, then Low Countries and France, then BoB, attack Egypt, send in Afrika Korps, attack Yugo, etc etc.

Which is why diplomacy, random events (as an option), and other factors could make a strategic level WW2 game fun again.

I agree with most things.

Hitler and Stalin were opportunists.

One of the main criticisms of France and Britain was that they did nothing when Germany attacked Poland.

In addition, had Stalin attacked Germany when it was engaged in France in 1940, I think events would have been quite interesting.

For these reasons, I think there should be opportunity costs for actions taken by the Axis.

For example. If Germany attacks Poland, then Allied war effort should increase for all countries concerned (France, Britain, USA, etc). The more countries Germany attacks, the higher the war footing AND the resources/troops the Allied countries should start to receive (via events and NOT through production).

If Germany doesn't guard its border with France then MAYBE the French might invade it.

If Germany is stalemated in France or if it takes longer than it did historically, then the USSR MIGHT (random %) strike first, or at least build up its troop levels.

If Germany is attacking neutral nations then other neutral nations should adjust their position accordingly - increase spending on military, start warming to the Allies, etc....

Randomness (on a % basis) should be built into the game where it makes sense historically to do so. This will help keep the player on his toes.

Many of these things have already been done in games such as SC.

Just a short remark here. It's clear that you have to make up your mind whether you want to have a hypothetical WWII, or have one more close to history. I say that because the USA is a special case. Remember that she was isolationist, and didn't gear up because Poland was invaded. If there was much gearing up at all before Pearl Harbor, it probably wasn't (guessing) until the Battle for Britain.

Hi.

I am very clear what I am seeking.

Many events in WWII often turned on a dime: Hitler not taking Dunkirk before the evacuation; Spain remaining neutral; Hitler not reinforcing Rommel in North Africa...., etc...

"Alternative" actions for these events and more are historically plausible. They add flavour to a game of WWII without being outlandish or unhistorical. And they could be included as toggle options.

If Germany attacks Poland, war footing should increase for the Allies. The USA starting gearing up fairly early.

Hitler tried to woe Spain into the war, but Franco didn't care for the terms. Hitler wanted the Japanese to attack the USSR in Siberia and the Port of Vladivostock, but they concluded a pact with the USSR instead and opted to push south.

These are all historically plausible.

I don't want Holland to take over the world, and I don't want Italy to become a superpower. But I feel that most people who have read a bit of WWII history are fully aware of the many IFs that could have occurred had the conditions been correct, or if certain leaders had made different decisions.

These options could be presented as toggles to allow the player to flavour or spice up his game. Do you allow for Siberian reinforcements? Present it as an option. Do you allow for a % chance of Spain joining the Axis? Present it as an option. Etc...

These options and many more provide for re-playability.... while keeping things historical....

It would be pretty boring if every game played the exact same way...

Cheers!

Alright, I understand your point, but my point was that if you were thinking that historically nations geared up for war just because Hitler invaded a country or two, that proved incorrect, at least in the case of the USA. Normally what you said was correct, but the USA was a major contradiction to that general wargame ruleset we have seen before, and being that the USA was one of the more powerful nations if one is resorting to being more historical with something so very basic like that, then it is important to realize just what an exception to the rule the USA was.

quote:

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

From what I seen so far, seldom does Sweden or Spain get invaded and that is despite there is no political penalty. The loss in production and manpower is not the only disadvantage but also that if you invade neutrals then you might be losing the battle for Egypt or the Battle of Britain since you have split your forces too much across the board.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

Having the work effort go up on each DoW sounds a bit like another game :) It would be good to have some cause and effect here but I'm not sure thats teh way to go.

Maybe neutral nations generate trade with you & you lose that trade when you DoW with them. Maybe there is a PP cost to each DoW, like in 3rd Reich (I think?).

Maybe a combination of things woudl work. The problem is this kind of thing is hard to balance and there are generally loopholes or side effects. E.g. it might end up where there is no point in attacking the minor neutrals because it brings the major nations in to the war too soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: targul

System works fine as is. There is no need to make people attack places that I can see. I always invade Norway anyway it is easy and produces adequate points.

I have had one player invade Spain. I still dont know why since he didnt take Gibralta. The prceeds from cities is the same as Yugoslavia so it is a much better target. Also Yugoslavia is much easier to beat then Spain. Spain had a good force.

By avoiding many areas I can see how the Germans might really speed themselves up. I can see them even getting into Russia very early.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

Why must we always play WW2 historically? Why can't Germany not invade Poland, and instead attack France Sept 1 1939? Why should the French sit on t heir borders and not attack a weak Germany occupied with battle in Poland? Why can't Russia decide not to honor the treaties with Germany and invade from thea east? What if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor? The U.S. would likely not have come into the war until much later...

It's rather dull after a while (playing AXIS for example) to attack Poland, then Denmark/Norway, then Low Countries and France, then BoB, attack Egypt, send in Afrika Korps, attack Yugo, etc etc.

Which is why diplomacy, random events (as an option), and other factors could make a strategic level WW2 game fun again.

I agree with most things.

Hitler and Stalin were opportunists.

One of the main criticisms of France and Britain was that they did nothing when Germany attacked Poland.

In addition, had Stalin attacked Germany when it was engaged in France in 1940, I think events would have been quite interesting.

For these reasons, I think there should be opportunity costs for actions taken by the Axis.

For example. If Germany attacks Poland, then Allied war effort should increase for all countries concerned (France, Britain, USA, etc). The more countries Germany attacks, the higher the war footing AND the resources/troops the Allied countries should start to receive (via events and NOT through production).

If Germany doesn't guard its border with France then MAYBE the French might invade it.

If Germany is stalemated in France or if it takes longer than it did historically, then the USSR MIGHT (random %) strike first, or at least build up its troop levels.

If Germany is attacking neutral nations then other neutral nations should adjust their position accordingly - increase spending on military, start warming to the Allies, etc....

Randomness (on a % basis) should be built into the game where it makes sense historically to do so. This will help keep the player on his toes.

Many of these things have already been done in games such as SC.

Just a short remark here. It's clear that you have to make up your mind whether you want to have a hypothetical WWII, or have one more close to history. I say that because the USA is a special case. Remember that she was isolationist, and didn't gear up because Poland was invaded. If there was much gearing up at all before Pearl Harbor, it probably wasn't (guessing) until the Battle for Britain.

Hi.

I am very clear what I am seeking.

Many events in WWII often turned on a dime: Hitler not taking Dunkirk before the evacuation; Spain remaining neutral; Hitler not reinforcing Rommel in North Africa...., etc...

"Alternative" actions for these events and more are historically plausible. They add flavour to a game of WWII without being outlandish or unhistorical. And they could be included as toggle options.

If Germany attacks Poland, war footing should increase for the Allies. The USA starting gearing up fairly early.

Hitler tried to woe Spain into the war, but Franco didn't care for the terms. Hitler wanted the Japanese to attack the USSR in Siberia and the Port of Vladivostock, but they concluded a pact with the USSR instead and opted to push south.

These are all historically plausible.

I don't want Holland to take over the world, and I don't want Italy to become a superpower. But I feel that most people who have read a bit of WWII history are fully aware of the many IFs that could have occurred had the conditions been correct, or if certain leaders had made different decisions.

These options could be presented as toggles to allow the player to flavour or spice up his game. Do you allow for Siberian reinforcements? Present it as an option. Do you allow for a % chance of Spain joining the Axis? Present it as an option. Etc...

These options and many more provide for re-playability.... while keeping things historical....

It would be pretty boring if every game played the exact same way...

Cheers!

Alright, I understand your point, but my point was that if you were thinking that historically nations geared up for war just because Hitler invaded a country or two, that proved incorrect, at least in the case of the USA. Normally what you said was correct, but the USA was a major contradiction to that general wargame ruleset we have seen before, and being that the USA was one of the more powerful nations if one is resorting to being more historical with something so very basic like that, then it is important to realize just what an exception to the rule the USA was.

Sorry, but the USA was not the exception to the rule.

While public opinion polls were isolationist, President Roosevelt and the top military brass were doing everything they could to help Britain, and to prepare the USA for the coming conflict they saw looming in Europe and the Pacific. The USA did not exist in a vacuum.

Examples:

1) In 1938 the President authorized the billion-dollar Naval Expansion Bill to raise the navy's strength by 20 percent which provided for two fast battleships, 40,000 tons of new carrier construction and 3,000 naval aircraft.

2) A little later in 1938 Congress was asked for $100 million to build 10,000 aircraft.

3) In 1939, the USA sent Britain and France multi-million dollar arms deals and carried out "neutrality patrols in the western and southern Atlantic.

4) In 1940 Congress voted for $1.1 billion for the US Army; a 70 percent increase in naval strength (to include 11 fast battleships, 11 Essex carriers, 50 cruisers, and 100 destroyers); and the Selective Service Bill to begin conscription was sent to Congress.

5) By late 1940 the USA army went from 200,000 men to 1 1/2 million men.

What I am suggesting is that as war heats up in the game, and as more countries are attacked, then a country such as the USA will increase its war footing and siding with Britain/France on a % basis over time (as it did in the real war).

There has to be opportunity and political costs for a country such as Germany to attack other countries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

Why must we always play WW2 historically? Why can't Germany not invade Poland, and instead attack France Sept 1 1939? Why should the French sit on t heir borders and not attack a weak Germany occupied with battle in Poland? Why can't Russia decide not to honor the treaties with Germany and invade from thea east? What if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor? The U.S. would likely not have come into the war until much later...

It's rather dull after a while (playing AXIS for example) to attack Poland, then Denmark/Norway, then Low Countries and France, then BoB, attack Egypt, send in Afrika Korps, attack Yugo, etc etc.

Which is why diplomacy, random events (as an option), and other factors could make a strategic level WW2 game fun again.

I agree with most things.

Hitler and Stalin were opportunists.

One of the main criticisms of France and Britain was that they did nothing when Germany attacked Poland.

In addition, had Stalin attacked Germany when it was engaged in France in 1940, I think events would have been quite interesting.

For these reasons, I think there should be opportunity costs for actions taken by the Axis.

For example. If Germany attacks Poland, then Allied war effort should increase for all countries concerned (France, Britain, USA, etc). The more countries Germany attacks, the higher the war footing AND the resources/troops the Allied countries should start to receive (via events and NOT through production).

If Germany doesn't guard its border with France then MAYBE the French might invade it.

If Germany is stalemated in France or if it takes longer than it did historically, then the USSR MIGHT (random %) strike first, or at least build up its troop levels.

If Germany is attacking neutral nations then other neutral nations should adjust their position accordingly - increase spending on military, start warming to the Allies, etc....

Randomness (on a % basis) should be built into the game where it makes sense historically to do so. This will help keep the player on his toes.

Many of these things have already been done in games such as SC.

Just a short remark here. It's clear that you have to make up your mind whether you want to have a hypothetical WWII, or have one more close to history. I say that because the USA is a special case. Remember that she was isolationist, and didn't gear up because Poland was invaded. If there was much gearing up at all before Pearl Harbor, it probably wasn't (guessing) until the Battle for Britain.

Hi.

I am very clear what I am seeking.

Many events in WWII often turned on a dime: Hitler not taking Dunkirk before the evacuation; Spain remaining neutral; Hitler not reinforcing Rommel in North Africa...., etc...

"Alternative" actions for these events and more are historically plausible. They add flavour to a game of WWII without being outlandish or unhistorical. And they could be included as toggle options.

If Germany attacks Poland, war footing should increase for the Allies. The USA starting gearing up fairly early.

Hitler tried to woe Spain into the war, but Franco didn't care for the terms. Hitler wanted the Japanese to attack the USSR in Siberia and the Port of Vladivostock, but they concluded a pact with the USSR instead and opted to push south.

These are all historically plausible.

I don't want Holland to take over the world, and I don't want Italy to become a superpower. But I feel that most people who have read a bit of WWII history are fully aware of the many IFs that could have occurred had the conditions been correct, or if certain leaders had made different decisions.

These options could be presented as toggles to allow the player to flavour or spice up his game. Do you allow for Siberian reinforcements? Present it as an option. Do you allow for a % chance of Spain joining the Axis? Present it as an option. Etc...

These options and many more provide for re-playability.... while keeping things historical....

It would be pretty boring if every game played the exact same way...

Cheers!

Alright, I understand your point, but my point was that if you were thinking that historically nations geared up for war just because Hitler invaded a country or two, that proved incorrect, at least in the case of the USA. Normally what you said was correct, but the USA was a major contradiction to that general wargame ruleset we have seen before, and being that the USA was one of the more powerful nations if one is resorting to being more historical with something so very basic like that, then it is important to realize just what an exception to the rule the USA was.

Sorry, but the USA was not the exception to the rule.

While public opinion polls were isolationist, President Roosevelt and the top military brass were doing everything they could to help Britain, and to prepare the USA for the coming conflict they saw looming in Europe and the Pacific. The USA did not exist in a vacuum.

Examples:

1) In 1938 the President authorized the billion-dollar Naval Expansion Bill to raise the navy's strength by 20 percent which provided for two fast battleships, 40,000 tons of new carrier construction and 3,000 naval aircraft.

2) A little later in 1938 Congress was asked for $100 million to build 10,000 aircraft.

3) In 1939, the USA sent Britain and France multi-million dollar arms deals and carried out "neutrality patrols in the western and southern Atlantic.

4) In 1940 Congress voted for $1.1 billion for the US Army; a 70 percent increase in naval strength (to include 11 fast battleships, 11 Essex carriers, 50 cruisers, and 100 destroyers); and the Selective Service Bill to begin conscription was sent to Congress.

5) By late 1940 the USA army went from 200,000 men to 1 1/2 million men.

What I am suggesting is that as war heats up in the game, and as more countries are attacked, then a country such as the USA will increase its war footing and siding with Britain/France on a % basis over time (as it did in the real war).

There has to be opportunity and political costs for a country such as Germany to attack other countries.

What you have there is an accelerated pattern, but I'm still not convinced the USA was ready for war in any form, though naturally the navy had to decide earlier when it came to building ships. The only mark you have there that might be attributed to poland would be #3, all the others are "possible" reactions to either the invasion of France or the later Battle of Britain. If you don't believe this, notice how paltry the US Army was according to those statements as it was a mere 200,000 until late 1940. Clearly that stems from the invasion of either the major nation of France and/or the possible invasion of England. While I cannot make a very strong case of USA isolation due to your data, I can tell you that it wasn't ready on 12/7/41 and that it certainly didn't gear up some major effort due to the minor nation of Poland being invaded. After you add up all those factors, only then can you even come close to making a case that I anticipate you would want to see out of this game (it didn't all happen on 9/39).

You simply can't put the USA on full war footing due to what was happening in Europe, much less Poland, if that's what you have in mind. Their war footing, even in just the general sense, would be nothing like the war footing for both England and France. If it's some more universal truth that nations gear up when "other" nations are invaded, especially on completely different continents, then I would have to ask just how many nations geared up for the current Iraq situation, or for Korea or Vietnam for that matter. I realize that the USA is often more a mother hen than a lot of nations are, but even she wasn't that way in WWII just because France and England decided to declare war for Poland and do absolutely nothing for the longest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero

Why must we always play WW2 historically? Why can't Germany not invade Poland, and instead attack France Sept 1 1939? Why should the French sit on t heir borders and not attack a weak Germany occupied with battle in Poland? Why can't Russia decide not to honor the treaties with Germany and invade from thea east? What if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor? The U.S. would likely not have come into the war until much later...

It's rather dull after a while (playing AXIS for example) to attack Poland, then Denmark/Norway, then Low Countries and France, then BoB, attack Egypt, send in Afrika Korps, attack Yugo, etc etc.

Which is why diplomacy, random events (as an option), and other factors could make a strategic level WW2 game fun again.

I agree with most things.

Hitler and Stalin were opportunists.

One of the main criticisms of France and Britain was that they did nothing when Germany attacked Poland.

In addition, had Stalin attacked Germany when it was engaged in France in 1940, I think events would have been quite interesting.

For these reasons, I think there should be opportunity costs for actions taken by the Axis.

For example. If Germany attacks Poland, then Allied war effort should increase for all countries concerned (France, Britain, USA, etc). The more countries Germany attacks, the higher the war footing AND the resources/troops the Allied countries should start to receive (via events and NOT through production).

If Germany doesn't guard its border with France then MAYBE the French might invade it.

If Germany is stalemated in France or if it takes longer than it did historically, then the USSR MIGHT (random %) strike first, or at least build up its troop levels.

If Germany is attacking neutral nations then other neutral nations should adjust their position accordingly - increase spending on military, start warming to the Allies, etc....

Randomness (on a % basis) should be built into the game where it makes sense historically to do so. This will help keep the player on his toes.

Many of these things have already been done in games such as SC.

Just a short remark here. It's clear that you have to make up your mind whether you want to have a hypothetical WWII, or have one more close to history. I say that because the USA is a special case. Remember that she was isolationist, and didn't gear up because Poland was invaded. If there was much gearing up at all before Pearl Harbor, it probably wasn't (guessing) until the Battle for Britain.

Hi.

I am very clear what I am seeking.

Many events in WWII often turned on a dime: Hitler not taking Dunkirk before the evacuation; Spain remaining neutral; Hitler not reinforcing Rommel in North Africa...., etc...

"Alternative" actions for these events and more are historically plausible. They add flavour to a game of WWII without being outlandish or unhistorical. And they could be included as toggle options.

If Germany attacks Poland, war footing should increase for the Allies. The USA starting gearing up fairly early.

Hitler tried to woe Spain into the war, but Franco didn't care for the terms. Hitler wanted the Japanese to attack the USSR in Siberia and the Port of Vladivostock, but they concluded a pact with the USSR instead and opted to push south.

These are all historically plausible.

I don't want Holland to take over the world, and I don't want Italy to become a superpower. But I feel that most people who have read a bit of WWII history are fully aware of the many IFs that could have occurred had the conditions been correct, or if certain leaders had made different decisions.

These options could be presented as toggles to allow the player to flavour or spice up his game. Do you allow for Siberian reinforcements? Present it as an option. Do you allow for a % chance of Spain joining the Axis? Present it as an option. Etc...

These options and many more provide for re-playability.... while keeping things historical....

It would be pretty boring if every game played the exact same way...

Cheers!

Alright, I understand your point, but my point was that if you were thinking that historically nations geared up for war just because Hitler invaded a country or two, that proved incorrect, at least in the case of the USA. Normally what you said was correct, but the USA was a major contradiction to that general wargame ruleset we have seen before, and being that the USA was one of the more powerful nations if one is resorting to being more historical with something so very basic like that, then it is important to realize just what an exception to the rule the USA was.

Sorry, but the USA was not the exception to the rule.

While public opinion polls were isolationist, President Roosevelt and the top military brass were doing everything they could to help Britain, and to prepare the USA for the coming conflict they saw looming in Europe and the Pacific. The USA did not exist in a vacuum.

Examples:

1) In 1938 the President authorized the billion-dollar Naval Expansion Bill to raise the navy's strength by 20 percent which provided for two fast battleships, 40,000 tons of new carrier construction and 3,000 naval aircraft.

2) A little later in 1938 Congress was asked for $100 million to build 10,000 aircraft.

3) In 1939, the USA sent Britain and France multi-million dollar arms deals and carried out "neutrality patrols in the western and southern Atlantic.

4) In 1940 Congress voted for $1.1 billion for the US Army; a 70 percent increase in naval strength (to include 11 fast battleships, 11 Essex carriers, 50 cruisers, and 100 destroyers); and the Selective Service Bill to begin conscription was sent to Congress.

5) By late 1940 the USA army went from 200,000 men to 1 1/2 million men.

What I am suggesting is that as war heats up in the game, and as more countries are attacked, then a country such as the USA will increase its war footing and siding with Britain/France on a % basis over time (as it did in the real war).

There has to be opportunity and political costs for a country such as Germany to attack other countries.

What you have there is an accelerated pattern, but I'm still not convinced the USA was ready for war in any form, though naturally the navy had to decide earlier when it came to building ships. The only mark you have there that might be attributed to poland would be #3, all the others are "possible" reactions to either the invasion of France or the later Battle of Britain. If you don't believe this, notice how paltry the US Army was according to those statements as it was a mere 200,000 until late 1940. Clearly that stems from the invasion of either the major nation of France and/or the possible invasion of England. While I cannot make a very strong case of USA isolation due to your data, I can tell you that it wasn't ready on 12/7/41 and that it certainly didn't gear up some major effort due to the minor nation of Poland being invaded. After you add up all those factors, only then can you even come close to making a case that I anticipate you would want to see out of this game (it didn't all happen on 9/39).

You simply can't put the USA on full war footing due to what was happening in Europe, much less Poland, if that's what you have in mind. Their war footing, even in just the general sense, would be nothing like the war footing for both England and France. If it's some more universal truth that nations gear up when "other" nations are invaded, especially on completely different continents, then I would have to ask just how many nations geared up for the current Iraq situation, or for Korea or Vietnam for that matter. I realize that the USA is often more a mother hen than a lot of nations are, but even she wasn't that way in WWII just because France and England decided to declare war for Poland and do absolutely nothing for the longest.

Hi Charles_22:

I certainly agree with many of your sentiments.

The USA did not step up to a high war footing like Britain and France.

The USA was indeed a special case, and it was a real tightrope to walk for those wanting to get into the war and those opposing it.

For a long while (until Pearl Harbour) public opinion polls were largely isolationist, even though the public sympathized with China and Britain.

Roosevelt and the military brass were playing a very delicate game: trying to appease the isolationists while at the same time, trying to prepare the USA for the coming war they knew the USA must eventually fight in Europe and the Pacific.

It was this "slow creep factor" where the USA war footing can be seen. In addition, to those points I listed above, the USA gave Britain 50 DDs, sent troops to relieve British forces, extended shipping patrols, carried out Lend-Lease, etc, etc...

And it is these areas where the game should take special note: that the USA did not exist in a vacuum. Each Axis attack was met with a measured USA response (see above). Roosevelt knew that France, and later Britain, were the first lines of defense for the USA. He had to keep them in the war.

The USA had a deadline of 1942 before it thought it would be ready. However, Japan (Dec 7/41) and Germany (Dec 11/41) caught it still less than prepared, especially given the fact that the USA could not get onto a war footing UNTIL it was actually in the war. Plus, it takes time to build and complete BBs, CVs, etc....

So, as far as the game goes, the more the Axis attacks, than the neutral USA should slowly increase its war footing and it should receive PPs (to simulate increased funding for armaments).

Cheers!

quote:

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

Game starts on normal difficulty by default so if we want to make it challenging then we still have to decide if that should be for the newbie player who never played wargames before, regular casual player or expert who played all games in this genre for years and years?

• newbie to computer war games
  
• regular played a few, won a few, lost a few
  
• expert