brian brian -> RE: Witness to World War 2. (1/5/2019 10:10:22 PM)
|
Now as far as what would Churchill do - if the German had invaded Denmark with minimal forces while Warsaw was still holding out, I think he absolutely would have encouraged action; though he would have only been the First Sea Lord at the time that would only embolden him, within the War Cabinet, to guarantee the ability of the Royal Navy to cover the projection of Royal Army assets into Denmark. Indeed holding the main peninsula of the country with plentiful airbases for those nifty new RAF fighters the Germans hadn't seen yet, might have tipped the scales against the Luftwaffe, who's deadliness in coastal areas had yet to be proven. At this same time he was busily pushing on subordinates to draw up plans to raid the Baltic with a squadron of WWI R class Battleships, while everyone else in the Royal Navy was trying to talk him out of such rash action, at which they eventually succeeded. But in World in Flames, the vast bulk of AARs here, when there is no France First, or even a Poland/France 50/50 effort by the Germans, the vast majority of Allied players move some BEF to France on the first turn and chalk that up as an important, successful operation. (Back to the real war for a second - the British argument for invading Italy, after taking Sicily, asked the Americans - what will our Armies do, after Sicily, but before the spring 44 landings in France? Sit on their bums for 6 whole months?) And that is what happens in most WiF games when the Germans take Poland first. Sure, they might get lucky on the weather in the late fall of 39 and through the winter and early spring of 40. But most likely, the W. Allied armies will have about zero to do until the historical turn of M/J 40. Meanwhile, one can say the British have plenty of other things to do - maybe Italy has joined the war. Maybe Gandhi is about to stir up trouble in India. Both possible. But if they don't? So I am kind of wondering, in this game, why the British would be very successful on their Ground Strikes on the Danish border, and then just meekly deploy to Calais while the Germans invade Denmark with a single unit anyway? A complete waste of a surprise impulse air mission, that could have hit the German navy harder, or made a pinprick on German production (inconsequential, but still more consequential than just flipping 2 German units for the turn.) But the British need troops - they can't pointlessly waste them in Denmark ? Yes, so they build 3 MIL on each turn in 1939 and now the UK has enough troops, in England, to hold northern Denmark, support the French in a hex or even 2, and supply emergency reinforcements against Italy if needed, and if not, to begin placing insurance garrisons against Gandhi and his friends in other parts of the Asian map. That is what I meant about being "nimble" - the Royal Navy is huge, and their TRS can sometimes do 2 things on one turn, if they use their re-org points wisely. But then they can't invest in CVs and BBs to win the war in 1942 - but without troops, early on, the British tasks in 1942 and onwards are that much more difficult, if they haven't been busily fighting the Axis at every opportunity, with ground troops, not awesome builds on the production chart. Playing solitaire, a lot revolves around your willingness to play to the game system, or to play to history. If the Allies don't want to mess around in Denmark or the Baltic, on non-historical concerns, there is also so need for the Germans to invade Denmark in 1939, when US Entry chits can be deadly serious. And the only way to see the advantages of pushing the German's buttons, by resisting them in Denmark and raiding the Baltic, is to pull the trigger and do it.
|
|
|
|