RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45

RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series

Message

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/13/2012 11:21:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins Hi IronDuke, A large part of your concern stems from the reality of World War II. We can't change that and we're not setting out to make a fictional game. No issue here, as I wouldn't buy it if it was fictional. I have spent time in the WitE forum arguing against German research and production because I don't think the game (any game) could simulate it acurately. quote: When I talk about "track record" I'm not trying to use it to wave away your concerns, I'm literally telling you that it might be worth taking a look at previous games from the same team at this scale in terms of seeing how it works in practice. I don't see this as condescending or ignoring you. It's an extremely relevant and valid point. If there had been no previous game made at this scale, we'd all be discussing theory with each other, but because a finished game exists you can look at it and see many of the questions of gameplay at this scale and how they were handled in practice. You may decide after that that it's not your cup of tea and that the gameplay at this scale does not work for you, but bringing up the existence of that previous game and that track record is not a way to silence you, it's IMHO a very useful data point. Keep in mind the internet is a very good way to miscommunicate. I can tell you that neither I or Joel intended to dismiss, insult or condescend to you. There is no way, however, to communicate tone or intent. Words once written can be read entirely differently depending on the views of the reader. Just keep it in mind please. I don't know that there's much more to say though. I understand your concerns, Joel does as well. We believe that the game in its final form is better than you are expecting it to be and as you said, I hope we're right. [:)] Fair enough, let's stand down. I've spent thousands of hours with 2by3 games, so it felt uncomfortable (and a little heretical) arguing with Joel anyway. In addition, I've known you several years and never known you be anything other than perfectly reasonable, so I didn't have the appetite for that fight, either. I've made my point, you've made yours, lets agree to see what happens. May I finish by wishing everyone connected with this development all the very best. I sincerely hope you pull it off because being proved right comes a very distant second to being proved completely wrong and having a great game to play... If I can make one last, parting plea: Do not blow 2by3's hard earned reputation for historical accuracy by making Sea Lion in any way, shape or form possible under any variation of this game....[;)] Respect and regards, IronDuke

Joel Billings -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/13/2012 11:30:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke If I can make one last, parting plea: Do not blow 2by3's hard earned reputation for historical accuracy by making Sea Lion in any way, shape or form possible under any variation of this game....[;)] Thanks for your feedback, and the only answer I can give re Sea Lion at this time is that if we do our job right it should only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time (except of course in hypothetical scenarios with different forces). [:)] In any case, that conversation is for another game, so I'm not going to say any more about that for quite awhile.

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/13/2012 11:51:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joel Billings quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke If I can make one last, parting plea: Do not blow 2by3's hard earned reputation for historical accuracy by making Sea Lion in any way, shape or form possible under any variation of this game....[;)] Thanks for your feedback, and the only answer I can give re Sea Lion at this time is that if we do our job right it should only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time (except of course in hypothetical scenarios with different forces). [:)] In any case, that conversation is for another game, so I'm not going to say any more about that for quite awhile. Given that the plan was to send long lines of river barges across the channel at a racy 4 miles an hour, (protected only by two Minesweepers and a converted fishing boat hurriedly kitted out with a sauage making machine for self defence) sailing into the face of hundreds of destroyers, MTBs, Cruisers, more destroyers and even battleships, with the furthest dispositioned of the starting forces starting the journey 24 hours before the landing, leaving port in full view of French civilians and Allied aerial recce, spending a day in full view of anything with wings or binoculars over or around the channel, meaning that tactical surprise achieved would have been marginally less than Picket managed, before landing a force that was planned to include several thousand horses onto a British beach (quite possibly including amongst its defenders several thousand blood thirsty Canadians) then I shall take the phrase "only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time" to mean it isn't going to happen......[;)] IronDuke is officially becalmed on this matter... My apologies if I appeared a little pushy during our exchanges, I am just serious about playing games... All the best, John.

vinnie71 -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/14/2012 4:42:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Offworlder Going at a tangent here. The map seems to cover the Balkans. Will there be allied options to land in the Balkans as well? In a way acting out Churchill's dream? No... not at this time... Balkans will remain dormant (i.e. ala WitE)... BTW, I asked this very same questions may months ago! [;)] Leo "Apollo11" [sm=innocent0001.gif] and there end my prayers... [:)] I have to admit at how the Italian collapse will be handled - unless the game starts just after the Italian collapse. I have to say that I noted an Italian para unit brigade in one of the screenies. Possibly the X Mas or part of the forces of the RSI?

Rasputitsa -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/14/2012 9:33:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Footslogger What made Hitler not complete Plan Z for the Kriegsmarine? The 'Z' Plan was intended to be completed by 1945/46, I think Hitler had earlier said that he did not expect war before 1950. Either way, the plan was overtaken by events, as the war started in 1939 and resources were needed to meet immediate war requirements. The 'Z' plan had anticipated more years of peace, the war came too soon, but whose fault was that.

Rasputitsa -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/14/2012 9:45:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke Therefore, bluff/counter bluff would seem hard to achieve. Unless the Allied player has to set his landing objectives 6 months in advance, all he has to do is use his air superiority to recon AXIS units and then land where they aren't. Surely that's how it will have to be if the game is to be anywhere near realistic, you can't just pop a major landing down without month's of preparation. Even the vintage 'Western Front', precursor to 'War in Russia', had significant penalties for changing the site of a planned landing. [:)]

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/14/2012 9:57:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke Therefore, bluff/counter bluff would seem hard to achieve. Unless the Allied player has to set his landing objectives 6 months in advance, all he has to do is use his air superiority to recon AXIS units and then land where they aren't. Surely that's how it will have to be if the game is to be anywhere near realistic, you can't just pop a major landing down without month's of preparation. Even the vintage 'Western Front', precursor to 'War in Russia', had significant penalties for changing the site of a planned landing. [:)] Agreed, going back to Cossac, their original plan dates to August 1943. Although it was significantly revised by Montgomery in Spring 1944, this original plan envisaged a Normandy landing. There should be a minimum 12 turn period between naming your landing zone and using it. Regards, ID

Rasputitsa -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/14/2012 10:23:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke You're a Historian as well as a Wargame designer. In 43-45, the equation is simple. Only by bottling the Allies up can the Germans create any kind of operational campaign. When the Germans aren't bottling the Allies up, they will be retreating, plain and simple. They don't have the numbers to create a front line the length of central France so, to be fair, it'd be surprising if large parts of the map of France were actually used for anything other than retreating through. You are probably right that, after a landing has taken place, there is not much operational flexibility left to either side, but there may be a lot to play for, before the landings are actually launched. Sicily, or Sardinia, Normandy, or the Pas de Calais, even with the limited map options available, the Axis cannot be strong everywhere, neither should the Allies be able to throw landings in at will. The Allies should have to commit to a plan and then sweat on how the Axis is deploying, with at least some FOW, it could get quite interesting. Unlike WiTE rail moving around your front, both sides will have limited flexibility and long planning cycles. The Allies because of extensive planning and naval logistics, the Axis because of the difficulty of quickly moving units. There will be a lot of long term planning to be done by both sides. All that you say is true if you take things from the commencement of a major landing, but there is a lot of mileage in the run-up to those situations, as there was historically. Invasion 1942, or 1943, or 1944, Roundup, Bolero, or Overlord. Normandy was not a done deal, there was plenty for the Allies to worry about, if the game can reproduce the same imperatives. Churchill said that the 'Battle of the Atlantic' was the thing that gave him the most concern during the war, so I would not write off the naval aspects of the game, until we see what it is. Production ?, a game in itself, .........maybe. 'We also serve who must watch and wait' [:)]

Rasputitsa -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/14/2012 10:38:51 PM)
The other aspect of the scale of the game is that Market-Garden was planned and launched, effectively within a game turn, designate a landing site and land on the following turn, with a multi-divisional force. It's all going to be over very quickly, one way or the other. From the slow deliberate planning of an amphibious landing, to the possible 'sudden death' decision of an airborne assault. Same with Crete, turn the wheel and hope your numbers come up. An airborne unit dropping on an enemy ground unit, support from friendly ground units, air support, air supply, AAA effects,...ummm ! You could be tearing your hair out over this one. [:)]

gradenko2k -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/15/2012 6:08:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa Surely that's how it will have to be if the game is to be anywhere near realistic, you can't just pop a major landing down without month's of preparation. Even the vintage 'Western Front', precursor to 'War in Russia', had significant penalties for changing the site of a planned landing. [:)] To draw once more from Western Front, that game would let the Allies have their pick of landing sites all across the beaches of Southern, Western, Northwestern and Northern France and parts of BeNeLux, but changing the invasion target was only "free" during the very first turn of the full campaign, ostensibly to represent how the Allies would have planning for that one site all along. Changing the landing targets after the first turn would then be a very expensive prospect in terms of Ops/Planning Points.

Rasputitsa -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/15/2012 8:58:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke quote: ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke Therefore, bluff/counter bluff would seem hard to achieve. Unless the Allied player has to set his landing objectives 6 months in advance, all he has to do is use his air superiority to recon AXIS units and then land where they aren't. Surely that's how it will have to be if the game is to be anywhere near realistic, you can't just pop a major landing down without month's of preparation. Even the vintage 'Western Front', precursor to 'War in Russia', had significant penalties for changing the site of a planned landing. [:)] Agreed, going back to Cossac, their original plan dates to August 1943. Although it was significantly revised by Montgomery in Spring 1944, this original plan envisaged a Normandy landing. There should be a minimum 12 turn period between naming your landing zone and using it. Regards, ID I understand your concerns over the scale of the game, perhaps the most important decisions Eisenhower made were, not to go on 5th June and then to go on 6th June, all outside the scale of the game. The weather effects on Market-Garden were difficult to plan for, apart from the fact that fog is likely in the UK in autumn, critical events changing by the day, even by the hour. One of the reasons why the Allies needed such an overwhelming force ratio was the potential uncertainty of the enterprise. The weather uncertainties of actually launching Overload were encompassed within one turn, but then there was the July storm and the destruction of one Mulberry harbour. The eventual success of Overlord was probably assured, but assaults launched earlier in the war could be more problematic. In WiTE you know the winter is coming in XX turns, give or take a week, or two. In amphibious, or airborne operations, you cannot know that a destructive storm may happen in a few turns, after you have already committed. Perhaps for actual assault turns, game turns in phases, with player input to combat cycles, option to abandon the attack, add support, etc. This game will have a completely feel from 'WiTE', the more you think about it, the more daunting it becomes. [:)]

Rasputitsa -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/15/2012 10:32:11 AM)
Taking IDs points about the game scale and turn length, particularly with respect to the immediacy of amphibious and airborne landings, I don't know what the DEVS are planning, but how about .......... Designate assault hexes, designate assault units for each hex (including supporting units), designate assault turns, there will be time restrictions on how many turns and what you have to spend, before the designated landing point and units can be used, but you can't just throw any unit, onto any beach, any time. When the designated assault turn arrives the attacking player decides to either, cancel/delay the assault (just becomes a normal turn), or launch the assault and the turn moves into phases. The detail is vast, but there would be opportunities to continue through the phases and add pre-designated supporting forces, for the enemy to react and move his supporting forces (when Hitler wakes up), for weather effects to come into play, maybe cut your losses and evacuate, or at least stop adding forces (you would not want a whole one week turn to play through an obvious disaster). This will extend the PBEM turn, but this will be a critical part of the game and worth playing through. Whatever the delay period is, if you change the designated items, you would have to delay the assault. So if 1st Inf is designated for hex XX/XX, on turn XX, then you could substitute any of these, but with a preparation delay, which would vary. (it would be easier to change the date than to change the assault target). Amphibious delays would be longer than airborne delays. Units could have a combat experience level and an assault experience level, assault experience can be gained in actual assaults, or in training and reduces without use, or continued training. High experience combat units would automatically have a low level of assault experience to start from. The player will have to balance assault experience against the expected defence resisting the assault and combat experience, which will come into play in later turn phases (if the assault succeeds), to secure a bridgehead (you my succeed in the beach assault/airborne landing, but fail to secure a bridgehead). Obviously you will want high assault experience with high combat experience, but early in the game these may be hard to come by. There will be difficult choices to be made. Once a bridgehead has been formed it may turn into a head-to-head slug-fest, but isn't that what history gave use. It's the build-up to landings and the actual assaults that contains most of the strategy. In game balance, the Axis will have a chance to launch assaults in the early war titles and can respond to the later assaults, rather than just be a punch-bag. There will be difficult, but interesting, defence decisions to be made. As for Sea-Lion, well surely we can toss a scrap to the Axis side, I would like to give it a try. We don't know what is coming, but all of this is to show that a lot could be done with the outline that we have been given.[:)]

Schmart -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/15/2012 8:35:54 PM)
The 43-45 western campaigns are difficult to emulate in a singular game, due to a large variance in terrain and operations. How do you replicate fighting in the Bocage? The flooded polders? Market Garden? Slugfest in Italy? Variability of amphibious operations? Shifting army level transport (APC, LVT, and truck) resources (for the Allies)? From a map and force scale perspective, you have massive force concentrations in Normandy, a narrow front in Italy, and 2/3rds of France that never/rarely gets used. Getting the right scale is difficult. The only real way to do it would be a gi-normous monster game, but then you get into playability issues. So you go a scale larger but then Normandy/Italy are too small on the map to do those campaigns justice. Round and round you go... I tried working it out back in my TOAW days, but couldn't. Others tried, and I don't think really sorted it out either. I don't envy the devs on this one at all...

tiddles -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/21/2012 10:36:00 AM)
I'd just like to say this looks like a great game. Having ploughed through endless posts on the scale of the game - it's pretty obvious it won't change. I actually don't care too much about fighting normandy at a closel level - I have a couple of SSG games that do that. (or the bulge for that matter). What I am really looking forward to is: - For allies - being able to land anywhere - can I go thru spain? - having logistics limitations - if I do land somewhere obscure and have to rely on only a single line - being able to produce the types of units I want - For germans - successfully defeating an invasion on the beaches - Picking the spot correctly and having the right reserves to react more than 'fighting' the 'normandy' battle per se - some ability to create deception measure to support the above point - having choice in the types of units created - possibly railing out a little of my industrial capacity (as did happen) That would be a pretty good game. I know there are a subset of very specialised folks who will play the game 30 times, optimise tactics and work out the one true path within the system. At that point I am sure they will claim the game is unbalanced, but that's often because if you play a game 30 times and have all that hindsight there are few surprises left, more than the model is inherently wrong. The early war game will be fun for the future - It's probably true that Sea Lion is a tough ask if you have the Sep 39 order of battle, but if the game is allowed to start earlier, or run longer then it should be possible. The main limitation would again seem to be hindsight - Manstein's plan worked once in France becuase of the element of surprise, not sure how it would work against a prepared enemy? Similarly in a whole of Europe game, you'd be foolhardy to invade russia with the english still fighting - but I guess these are questions for 2016 or whenever. In the meantime can I pre-order yet - it sounds great! [:D]

tiddles -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/21/2012 10:48:03 AM)
Oh - One thing that would really help would be a better user interface. I bought WITE about 3 months back almost solely because a review said that it was much easier to find info and do things than in WITP. And WITE is better, but there are still a huge number of onerous clicks (e.g. Click on the stack, then move mouse over to far right of screen, click on unit to bring the unit info up in middle of screen, move mouse back across to middle of screen to click to take an action with that unit) - There seriously must be better ways to do this stuff. I know the grogs will focus on scale of hexes etc. (as they should![;)]) but user interface improvements would be truly[&o]

gamer78 -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/28/2012 4:30:21 AM)
From reading most of the posts, I'm very much convinced how valuable current WIE is regarding the map size and huge area covered for land warfare. I will be interested and buying all the WIW games with the hope at least advance logistics(Rail capacity) to be implemented to current WIE. And I don't see connection between war in the west and war in the east fronts so didn't understand the concept behind making a game covering whole europe. I hope future WIE 2 game map won't shrink to be in scale with war in west. But as WIE is a great game no doubt younger ones will be even better . [;)]

tigercub -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/28/2012 4:47:06 AM)
Myself ...i think war in the west is a waste of time....but the 40 ver is a better idea...stop farting about just give us the whole Karbarb! Tigercub

janh -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/30/2012 10:35:01 AM)
Joel, I have a question regarding the weather model in WitW: will it be refined in some way? The reason I ask is the impact of the weather effects (outside the 1st blizzard rules), in particular the role of "mud". As is beyond any question, a single turn of mud in a 1941 GC and badly derail the Axis advance, as much as much in any game will put offensive actions to an abrupt halt. Also supply is very badly hampered. To me, this impact seems very severe. The reason I believe is the "crudeness" of the model. Since "rain" (precipitation) is not depicted in game, there is no warning of upcoming ground condition changes, nor is there even a very crude, perhaps often inaccurate weather forecast. I imagine that in summer, it will take several weeks of typical summer rains to create this type of "heavy mud" that will cut supply so severely and reduce offensive CV strongly (why not defensive CV, btw? defense is not that static either?). This type of "heavy mud" we see in game seems appropriate after weeks of rain, in later October, or in spring. But I think there ought to be some more transitional weather forms such as rain and "light mud", continuing rainfall and "medium mud" up to heavy continuing rainfall and "heavy mud". Each with correspondingly increasing penalties up to the "heavy mud" we have. Maybe in summer the transition could be slow, and in autumn and spring there might even be a chance to jump from "light mud" to "heavy mud" in one week. This would make the effect of mud more plausible in game, because it would be so abrupt/ immediately severe and a bit more manageable. I have been reading much recently from the Wehrmachts reports of the Barbarossa opening, as well as comparing to secondary literature, and in both cases there is mention of poor weather, rain and increasingly muddy off-road and road conditions starting mid-July. Apparently it had started to rain around July 8 in AGS AO, a little later in the AGC area. By July 14 ground conditions had deteriorated so much that in the official reports of OKW, Chef Lage (chief of "situation/intel") kept continuously remarking that mud inhibited the progress for AGS badly. By July 24 even the road conditions were getting so bad, that supply was having trouble getting through and that Panzergruppe 1 progress was hampered (besides by the previously very heavy resistance and counterattacks of 26th Soviet Army, which by that time was waning). Around this date, also Panzergruppe 2 reported trouble due to ground conditions and summer rain. Certainly these weather conditions slowed German progress and reduced combat power for AGS, which makes this seem important. I would interpret this in the way that with "historical weather", there also should be some mud for AGS and AGC in July. However, the mud effects presently would not seem to to the above justice, they would be severe. Progress was limited, and supply as well, but certainly not as bad as in game since the historic advance and fighting slowed, but did not subside for 3 weeks at a time. Something like "light mud", with 10-20% supply reduction, 10% higher MP costs, and maybe 20% reduction in attacker and 10% in defender CV would seem more appropriate.

glvaca -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/30/2012 6:01:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke quote: ORIGINAL: Joel Billings quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke If I can make one last, parting plea: Do not blow 2by3's hard earned reputation for historical accuracy by making Sea Lion in any way, shape or form possible under any variation of this game....[;)] Thanks for your feedback, and the only answer I can give re Sea Lion at this time is that if we do our job right it should only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time (except of course in hypothetical scenarios with different forces). [:)] In any case, that conversation is for another game, so I'm not going to say any more about that for quite awhile. Given that the plan was to send long lines of river barges across the channel at a racy 4 miles an hour, (protected only by two Minesweepers and a converted fishing boat hurriedly kitted out with a sauage making machine for self defence) sailing into the face of hundreds of destroyers, MTBs, Cruisers, more destroyers and even battleships, with the furthest dispositioned of the starting forces starting the journey 24 hours before the landing, leaving port in full view of French civilians and Allied aerial recce, spending a day in full view of anything with wings or binoculars over or around the channel, meaning that tactical surprise achieved would have been marginally less than Picket managed, before landing a force that was planned to include several thousand horses onto a British beach (quite possibly including amongst its defenders several thousand blood thirsty Canadians) then I shall take the phrase "only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time" to mean it isn't going to happen......[;)] IronDuke is officially becalmed on this matter... My apologies if I appeared a little pushy during our exchanges, I am just serious about playing games... All the best, John. You Brits are overly sensitive on this subject. Besides, hundreds of Destroyers? Not quite. BB's? Not quite as it was already decided they would not enter the Channel unless Germans brought their capital ships too, which they couldn't, as they didn't have them at the time. Read the book Invasion of England 1940: The Planning of Operation Sealion by Peter Schenk for a very torough inestigation and listing of the ACTUAL preperations of the Germans, and be amazed. Also note, during the numerous landings in Italy, on several occasions Destroyers lost the fight against 88mm's. There were going to be plenty on barges and rafts so concluding that Sealion was not possible is rather bias [;)] Typically British

Walloc -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/30/2012 8:56:26 PM)
Hi Joel, I have some of teh same concerns as Janh. Apart from Italy where u have muddy conditions closing down operations as u had during rasputsia in russia, but generally u dont get any where near conditions as that in europe N of Italy/alpes. So a 1/8 attack CV seems out of order. I'd even say for my taste it alrdy strech a bit to far into Polen especially in light of the new VP scn. Another thing to consider alrdy now rather than run into issues later on seems to be. If an approx of current the model is keept. Assuming allies start with the initiative in WiTW aka first player in turns. Then there is no problem in that u dont invade until in the next player turn, as u alrdy know the weather and can act accordingly. But what about a "War in Europe". One would assume axis starts with initiative and less some provisions for it to switch, u wouldnt know the weather in the following player turn on planing of an invasion. So if u plan a invasion and then run into a 1/8 CV in next turn ur prolly politely speaking not well off. That seems very harsh considering how close D-Day came to be postponed cuz of the weather. Historicly things speaking too u wouldnt run not 1/8 attack CV("bad weather") situasion as it would "just" have been postponed. Maybe if not alrdy some provisions for that should be thot into WiTW in anticipation of WIE. Kind regards, Rasmus

Joel Billings -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/30/2012 10:31:10 PM)
There will be some changes to weather, but they will be similar to what we have using weather zones. We already have modified mud rules for some areas, but I can't say exactly where the rules will end up. Those looking for a complex weather model or hex by hex weather will be disappointed, but those looking for some refinement of the current system should be happy.

randallw -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/31/2012 4:56:25 AM)
Hope the weather zones are smaller than they are in WitE. [;)]

warspite1 -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/31/2012 8:38:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: glvaca quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke quote: ORIGINAL: Joel Billings quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke If I can make one last, parting plea: Do not blow 2by3's hard earned reputation for historical accuracy by making Sea Lion in any way, shape or form possible under any variation of this game....[;)] Thanks for your feedback, and the only answer I can give re Sea Lion at this time is that if we do our job right it should only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time (except of course in hypothetical scenarios with different forces). [:)] In any case, that conversation is for another game, so I'm not going to say any more about that for quite awhile. Given that the plan was to send long lines of river barges across the channel at a racy 4 miles an hour, (protected only by two Minesweepers and a converted fishing boat hurriedly kitted out with a sauage making machine for self defence) sailing into the face of hundreds of destroyers, MTBs, Cruisers, more destroyers and even battleships, with the furthest dispositioned of the starting forces starting the journey 24 hours before the landing, leaving port in full view of French civilians and Allied aerial recce, spending a day in full view of anything with wings or binoculars over or around the channel, meaning that tactical surprise achieved would have been marginally less than Picket managed, before landing a force that was planned to include several thousand horses onto a British beach (quite possibly including amongst its defenders several thousand blood thirsty Canadians) then I shall take the phrase "only be possible in so much as it would have been possible at that time" to mean it isn't going to happen......[;)] IronDuke is officially becalmed on this matter... My apologies if I appeared a little pushy during our exchanges, I am just serious about playing games... All the best, John. You Brits are overly sensitive on this subject. Besides, hundreds of Destroyers? Not quite. BB's? Not quite as it was already decided they would not enter the Channel unless Germans brought their capital ships too, which they couldn't, as they didn't have them at the time. Read the book Invasion of England 1940: The Planning of Operation Sealion by Peter Schenk for a very torough inestigation and listing of the ACTUAL preperations of the Germans, and be amazed. Also note, during the numerous landings in Italy, on several occasions Destroyers lost the fight against an 88mm's. There were going to be plenty on barges and rafts so concluding that Sealion was not possible is rather bias [;)] Typically British Warspite1 Yes I would be amazed if the conclusion was that it was possible.... [;)] It's not sensitivity or being typically British [8\|] that drives this thought process, its just simple logic that takes into account the forces involved (the Germans lost their navy in Norway - what exactly is going to escort these barges), the geography (The Channel, despite its size, is a notoriously difficult stretch of water) and the weather (look at what happened to one of the mulberries in 1944).

glvaca -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/31/2012 9:53:31 AM)
The conclusion is that they did put a tremendous effort in the preparations. And while the top brass never could make up their mind, those scheduled/expected to perform the invasion took it for real and did everything they could to prepare as good as they could. The Germans didn't "lose" their Navy at Norway, they lost a part and the rest was damaged and not available for Sealion. But still, they had about 20, maybe 30, destroyers and smaller of destroyer type vessels. Including various older models. And let's not forget, the Brits had relatively small destroyer types at the time. Not to speak of the 25 or so U-boats deployed in the Channel, which oddly are left out of many British works on the subject. The biggest threat to the invasion from the German point of view were the Cruisers, but that's why the Germans had an air force. And the Channel was located South of London, very close to German air bases. Besides, for all intent and purpose, the Germans HAD air superiority over the Channel. The objective conclusion is that Sealion had a good chance of landing the troops of the first waves. Surely, there would have been casualties. Surely, it would have been difficult. The real problem would be to land the follow up waves and supply them. And that would be decided by a major air battle in which the Germans had the advantage of being much closer to their bases as previously. It would have been fought over water so less chance for British pilots to survive. And obviously, the British Navy would have to play a major part in it. How it would have gone is everybodies guess. Do I put my money on the Brits? YES! But is it a foregone conclusion, not on your life!

warspite1 -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/31/2012 10:16:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: glvaca The conclusion is that they did put a tremendous effort in the preparations. And while the top brass never could make up their mind, those scheduled/expected to perform the invasion took it for real and did everything they could to prepare as good as they could. The Germans didn't "lose" their Navy at Norway, they lost a part and the rest was damaged and not available for Sealion. But still, they had about 20, maybe 30, destroyers and smaller of destroyer type vessels. Including various older models. And let's not forget, the Brits had relatively small destroyer types at the time. Not to speak of the 25 or so U-boats deployed in the Channel, which oddly are left out of many British works on the subject. The biggest threat to the invasion from the German point of view were the Cruisers, but that's why the Germans had an air force. And the Channel was located South of London, very close to German air bases. Besides, for all intent and purpose, the Germans HAD air superiority over the Channel. The objective conclusion is that Sealion had a good chance of landing the troops of the first waves. Surely, there would have been casualties. Surely, it would have been difficult. The real problem would be to land the follow up waves and supply them. And that would be decided by a major air battle in which the Germans had the advantage of being much closer to their bases as previously. It would have been fought over water so less chance for British pilots to survive. And obviously, the British Navy would have to play a major part in it. How it would have gone is everybodies guess. Do I put my money on the Brits? YES! But is it a foregone conclusion, not on your life! Warspite1 But remember, during the Battle of Britain the Germans got their tactics very, very wrong. As with all fantasy scenarios, such as Sealion, there is an automatic assumption that everything goes perfectly for the attackers and that, in this case, Goering would get the tactics spot on. You could argue the same of course for the defenders, the difference is that the defenders here have a MUCH bigger margin for error; simply put, the Germans - Army, Navy and Air Force - have to get everything right (and hope the weather remains kind for a lengthy period of time) to even have the slightest chance. Well this one could run and run! I guess we shall agree to disagree. [:)]

Apollo11 -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (3/31/2012 9:04:19 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: glvaca The conclusion is that they did put a tremendous effort in the preparations. And while the top brass never could make up their mind, those scheduled/expected to perform the invasion took it for real and did everything they could to prepare as good as they could. The Germans didn't "lose" their Navy at Norway, they lost a part and the rest was damaged and not available for Sealion. But still, they had about 20, maybe 30, destroyers and smaller of destroyer type vessels. Including various older models. And let's not forget, the Brits had relatively small destroyer types at the time. Not to speak of the 25 or so U-boats deployed in the Channel, which oddly are left out of many British works on the subject. The biggest threat to the invasion from the German point of view were the Cruisers, but that's why the Germans had an air force. And the Channel was located South of London, very close to German air bases. Besides, for all intent and purpose, the Germans HAD air superiority over the Channel. The objective conclusion is that Sealion had a good chance of landing the troops of the first waves. Surely, there would have been casualties. Surely, it would have been difficult. The real problem would be to land the follow up waves and supply them. And that would be decided by a major air battle in which the Germans had the advantage of being much closer to their bases as previously. It would have been fought over water so less chance for British pilots to survive. And obviously, the British Navy would have to play a major part in it. How it would have gone is everybodies guess. Do I put my money on the Brits? YES! But is it a foregone conclusion, not on your life! War is won by logistics! [;)] Germans could have trid the Sealion invasion and they might have succesfull landing in England - but they would be doomed there because the landed troops would eventually run out of ammo, fuel and supplies... [:D] The Germans never had Mullbery harbours - they simply had to rely on capturing some ports in England - and to think that such port would be able to be defended agianst everything British would have thrown against it is impossible dearm for Germans! BTW, there is one nice war game conducted in the, I think 1970's... quote: Operation Sealion - summary of an exercise held at the Staff College, Sandhurst in 1974. [image]http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/9236/attachmentof.jpg[/image] The full text is in 'Sealion' by Richard Cox. The scenario is based on the known plans of each side, plus previously unpublished Admiralty weather records for September 1940. Each side (played by British and German officers respectively) was based in a command room, and the actual moves plotted on a scale model of SE England constructed at the School of Infantry. The panel of umpires included Adolf Galland, Admiral Friedrich Ruge, Air Chief Marshal Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris, Rear Admiral Edward Gueritz, General Heinz Trettner and Major General Glyn Gilbert. The main problem the Germans face is that are a) the Luftwaffe has not yet won air supremacy; b) the possible invasion dates are constrained by the weather and tides (for a high water attack) and c) it has taken until late September to assemble the necessary shipping. Glossary FJ = Fallschirmjaeger (German paratroops) MTB = Motor Torpedo Boat (German equivalent, E-Boat) DD = Destroyer CA = Heavy Cruiser BB = Battleship CV = Aircraft Carrier 22nd September - morning The first wave of a planned 330,000 men hit the beaches at dawn. Elements of 9 divisions landed between Folkestone and Rottingdean (near Brighton). In addition 7th FJ Div landed at Lympne to take the airfield. The invasion fleet suffered minor losses from MTBs during the night crossing, but the RN had already lost one CA and three DDs sunk, with one CA and two DDs damaged, whilst sinking three German DDs. Within hours of the landings which overwhelmed the beach defenders, reserve formations were despatched to Kent. Although there were 25 divisions in the UK, only 17 were fully equipped, and only three were based in Kent, however the defence plan relied on the use of mobile reserves and armoured and mechanised brigades were committed as soon as the main landings were identified. Meanwhile the air battle raged, the Luftwaffe flew 1200 fighter and 800 bomber sorties before 1200 hrs. The RAF even threw in training planes hastily armed with bombs, but the Luftwaffe were already having problems with their short ranged Me 109s despite cramming as many as possible into the Pas de Calais. 22nd - 23rd September The Germans had still not captured a major port, although they started driving for Folkestone. Shipping unloading on the beaches suffered heavy losses from RAF bombing raids and then further losses at their ports in France. The U-Boats, Luftwaffe and few surface ships had lost contact with the RN, but then a cruiser squadron with supporting DDs entered the Channel narrows and had to run the gauntlet of long range coastal guns, E-Boats and 50 Stukas. Two CAs were sunk and one damaged. However a diversionary German naval sortie from Norway was completely destroyed and other sorties by MTBS and DDs inflicted losses on the shipping milling about in the Channel. German shipping losses on the first day amounted to over 25% of their invasion fleet, especially the barges, which proved desperately unseaworthy. 23rd Sept dawn - 1400 hrs. The RAF had lost 237 planes out 1048 (167 fighters and 70 bombers), and the navy had suffered enough losses such that it was keeping its BBs and CVs back, but large forces of DDs and CAs were massing. Air recon showed a German buildup in Cherbourg and forces were diverted to the South West. The German Navy were despondant about their losses, especially as the loss of barges was seriously dislocating domestic industry. The Army and Airforce commanders were jubilant however, and preperations for the transfer of the next echelon continued along with the air transport of 22nd Div, despite Luftwaffe losses of 165 fighters and 168 bombers. Out of only 732 fighters and 724 bombers these were heavy losses. Both sides overestimated losses inflicted by 50%. The 22nd Div airlanded successfully at Lympne, although long range artillery fire directed by a stay-behind commando group interdicted the runways. The first British counterattacks by 42nd Div supported by an armoured brigade halted the German 34th Div in its drive on Hastings. 7th Panzer Div was having difficulty with extensive anti-tank obstacles and assault teams armed with sticky bombs etc. Meanwhile an Australian Div had retaken Newhaven (the only German port), however the New Zealand Div arrived at Folkestone only to be attacked in the rear by 22nd Airlanding Div. The division fell back on Dover having lost 35% casualties. Sep 23rd 1400 - 1900 hrs Throughout the day the Luftwaffe put up a maximum effort, with 1500 fighter and 460 bomber sorties, but the RAF persisted in attacks on shipping and airfields. Much of this effort was directed for ground support and air resupply, despite Adm Raeders request for more aircover over the Channel. The Home Fleet had pulled out of air range however, leaving the fight in the hands of 57 DDs and 17 CAs plus MTBs. The Germans could put very little surface strength against this. Waves of DDs and CAs entered the Channel, and although two were sunk by U-Boats, they sank one U-Boat in return and did not stop. The German flotilla at Le Havre put to sea (3 DD, 14 E-Boats) and at dusk intercepted the British, but were wiped out, losing all their DDs and 7 E-Boats. The Germans now had 10 divisions ashore, but in many cases these were incomplete and waiting for their second echelon to arrive that night. The weather was unsuitable for the barges however, and the decision to sail was referred up the chain of command. 23rd Sep 1900 - Sep 24th dawn The Fuhrer Conference held at 1800 broke out into bitter inter-service rivalry - the Army wanted their second echelon sent, and the navy protesting that the weather was unsuitable, and the latest naval defeat rendered the Channel indefensible without air support. Goring countered this by saying it could only be done by stopped the terror bombing of London, which in turn Hitler vetoed. The fleet was ordered to stand by. The RAF meanwhile had lost 97 more fighters leaving only 440. The airfields of 11 Group were cratered ruins, and once more the threat of collapse, which had receded in early September, was looming. The Luftwaffe had lost another 71 fighters and 142 bombers. Again both sides overestimated losses inflicted, even after allowing for inflated figures. On the ground the Germans made good progress towards Dover and towards Canterbury, however they suffered reverses around Newhaven when the 45th Div and Australians attacked. At 2150 Hitler decided to launch the second wave, but only the short crossing from Calais and Dunkirk. By the time the order reached the ports, the second wave could not possibly arrive before dawn. The 6th and 8th divisions at Newhaven, supplied from Le Havre, would not be reinforced at all. Sep 24th dawn - Sep 28th The German fleet set sail, the weather calmed, and U-Boats, E-Boats and fighters covered them. However at daylight 5th destroyer flotilla found the barges still 10 miles off the coast and tore them to shreds. The Luftwaffe in turn committed all its remaining bombers, and the RAF responded with 19 squadrons of fighters. The Germans disabled two CAs and four DDs, but 65% of the barges were sunk. The faster steamers broke away and headed for Folkestone, but the port had been so badly damaged that they could only unload two at a time. The failure on the crossing meant that the German situation became desperate. The divisions had sufficient ammunition for 2 to 7 days more fighting, but without extra men and equipment could not extend the bridgehead. Hitler ordered the deployment on reserve units to Poland and the Germans began preparations for an evacuation as further British arracks hemmed them in tighter. Fast steamers and car ferries were assembled for evacuation via Rye and Folkestone. Of 90,000 troops who landed on 22nd september, only 15,400 returned to France, the rest were killed or captured. Leo "Apollo11"

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (4/2/2012 1:12:21 AM)
quote: You Brits are overly sensitive on this subject. I prefer the phrase overly analytical and anal when it comes to questions of historical plausibility, but lets agree to disagree. quote: Besides, hundreds of Destroyers? Not quite. I expect the total available in British waters was in three figures. Naval OOBs are a bit of a moving target, but there were a dozen Destroyer flotillas based in home waters, together with maybe another 30 Cruisers and a half dozen capital ships. In addition, throw in another couple of hundred minesweepers, Sloops, anti-submarine ships, MTBs etc, all of which were capable of sinking a river barge packed with defenceless soldiers. quote: BB's? Not quite as it was already decided they would not enter the Channel unless Germans brought their capital ships too, which they couldn't, as they didn't have them at the time. Let me put it this way. I consider it inconceivable that the capital ships would have stayed in Scapa flow if the Germans had been landing reinforcements and supplies unhindered. quote: Read the book Invasion of England 1940: The Planning of Operation Sealion by Peter Schenk for a very torough inestigation and listing of the ACTUAL preperations of the Germans, and be amazed. Why? I don;t care how many barges they converted, how many rafts they stuck steel plates on etc. The fact is the plan was to drive 1000s of river barges in long vulnerable lines across choppy waters at 4 miles an hour with a handful of sausage making machines for protection. Additionally, the furthest away would have neeed to leave port 24 hours before landing making operational and tactical surprise a non starter. What amazes me is that anyone who simply reads out what was being planned thinks it stood a chance of success. quote: Also note, during the numerous landings in Italy, on several occasions Destroyers lost the fight against 88mm's. Irrelevant. No British destroyer engaging German barges in mid channel was going to be engaged by an 88mm weapon on the french coast. quote: There were going to be plenty on barges and rafts so concluding that Sealion was not possible is rather bias [;)] [:D] So, the answer to hundreds of British vessels rolling up and down long lines of German barges machine gunning at will was to build more barges than the Navy had ammo to blow out of the water? It would have been a slaughter. It isn't bias, it's just recognising the operational impossibility of what was being planned. Any barge would have been sunk by a 4 or 6 inch shell strike. The effect of machine guns or anti aircraft weapons on unprotected soldiers in slow moving barges is best not imagined. The Germans would have run out of barges and rafts (no matter how many they had) long before the RN ran out of munitions. quote: Typically British I disagree. It's simply common sense and the ability to see a ridiculous scheme when it is presented. Regards, ID

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (4/2/2012 1:35:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: glvaca The conclusion is that they did put a tremendous effort in the preparations. I don't get the point of this. Are my chances of walking to the moon improved if I spend three years planning and training for it? quote: And while the top brass never could make up their mind, those scheduled/expected to perform the invasion took it for real and did everything they could to prepare as good as they could. The Kriegsmarine understood it was a joke and were dead against it. quote: The Germans didn't "lose" their Navy at Norway, they lost a part and the rest was damaged and not available for Sealion. But still, they had about 20, maybe 30, destroyers and smaller of destroyer type vessels. Including various older models. And let's not forget, the Brits had relatively small destroyer types at the time. Not to speak of the 25 or so U-boats deployed in the Channel, which oddly are left out of many British works on the subject. If memory serves they lost 10 destroyers and a couple of Cruisers. Whatever they had left was outnumbered 5 or 6 to 1. quote: The biggest threat to the invasion from the German point of view were the Cruisers, but that's why the Germans had an air force. And the Channel was located South of London, very close to German air bases. Besides, for all intent and purpose, the Germans HAD air superiority over the Channel. They didn't have that many aircraft capable of hitting ships moving at 30 knots and firing back. Besides, either on their way home, or on their way to the beaches, the barges would have been moving in darkness, which would have rendered the Luftwaffe impotent. quote: The objective conclusion is that Sealion had a good chance of landing the troops of the first waves. some troops, not too mention the survivors of the 4200 horses they planned to take in the first wave. quote: Surely, there would have been casualties. Akin to describing the first atomic test as "a bit of a bang". quote: Surely, it would have been difficult. The real problem would be to land the follow up waves and supply them. And that would be decided by a major air battle in which the Germans had the advantage of being much closer to their bases as previously. It would have been fought over water so less chance for British pilots to survive. And obviously, the British Navy would have to play a major part in it. How it would have gone is everybodies guess. Do I put my money on the Brits? YES! But is it a foregone conclusion, not on your life! It was a foregone conclusion. The Germans couldn't defeat fighter command and given every single plane the allies put up could have sunk a barge, in standard FOW, any number would have got through. Regards, ID

gradenko2k -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (4/2/2012 1:41:24 AM)
http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/Miscellaneous/Sealion.htm This is a pretty damning essay on why Sealion would not have been feasible. Or rather, it's possible that the Germans would have been able to land SOME troops on English soil, but their chances success were slim to none.

KamilS -> RE: Basic info on War in the West 43-45 (4/3/2012 12:54:04 AM)
I am convinced by IronDuke's arguments about likely impact of scale of the game on future entertaining value of this product. Other thing that concerns me is possible incorporation of WitE combat mechanics with its leming-like tactics of charging towards range 0.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.828125