RE: House Rules

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: House Rules

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: House Rules

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: House Rules - 2/5/2015 11:42:22 PM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

Originally the Brits and the French were planning to "Send help to Finland" when the Soviets performed their "Winter War", but in truth the Allies planned to militarize the swedish mine to stop the ore shipments to Germany.
That is why they had troops ready to be sent in Norway.

They evacuated Narvik because for them, it was of no strategic value anymore and any effort to keep it would have been futile. Especially with the fall of France.
Norway campaign started before France one, and after the "poor" image with Guaranteeing Poland and not being able to do much about it, it was a move to shine at the eye of the world or at least redeem their own political stance.

About Swedish Ore, the matter was never "Sweden fears invasion of Germany", Sweden economically needed the German coal, it was a trade agreement between two nations in good terms.
When the German downfall was pretty evident, and German economy crippled, as many others did anyhow, Sweden started to look to the winners. In '44 Sweden was still trading actively with Germany, to the extent the USA preemptively bought all the Sweden production of ball-bearings for '45. That came quite late as the Germany was crippled already. (The USA discovered of that trade notion after their bombing in '43 of the ball-bearing facilities in Germany. Sweinfurt and Ratisbon - spelling can be wrong).

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 61

RE: House Rules - 2/6/2015 1:04:07 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

So why attack the place in the first place at all then, was more of my point. If there were so many good reasons not to defend it, that begs the question - why go get it? I know, it was in the context of the full campaign and a hope that the Germans could be stopped in general, including in southern Norway.

I did read that both Gladiators and Hurricanes were in northern Norway. But the #s of military assets under discussion are small. A dozen Hurricanes or so, not even a full division of infantry, trivial amounts of supply shipping. Churchill, naturally, argued to stay, by the way, but deferred to his High Command on that one. Time would have proven him wrong as Orm's post indicates, and he had plenty to answer for in Norway in general; not one of his shining moments.

Warspite1

So why attack? If you mean why take Narvik, the rationale was that it would make the chances of a successful evacuation more likely.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 62

RE: House Rules - 2/6/2015 1:28:10 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cohen

.........and after the "poor" image with Guaranteeing Poland and not being able to do much about it, it was a move to shine at the eye of the world or at least redeem their own political stance.

warspite1

No the Norwegian Campaign had nothing to do with "shine at the eye of the world or at least redeem their own political stance". In fact it was quite the reverse as already stated.

The Allied interest - or rather Churchill's - interest in Norway came about because he felt cutting off Germany's Iron Ore supply from Sweden would be a hammer blow to their war-making capability. The problem was the only way to do this was to effectively invade Norway - and Sweden!!

While the Winter War was on, Churchill hoped he could persuade the Norwegians and Swedes to accept British troops on their soil in order to aid their fellow Scandinavians. Quite naturally they wanted nothing to do with this folly - and the Allies (Chamberlain quite rightly) were concerned that carrying out such a foolhardy act was against international law. Fortunately the Allies dithered for so long the Winter War came to an end before the landing in Norway could happen.

The next development was that the British would mine Norwegian territorial waters (to stop German shipping using these waters) and when that provoked a response from the Germans the Allies would land troops that just happened to be aboard ship and ready to intervene.

Either version was frankly unacceptable for an Alliance taking the moral high ground, although at least in the case of the mining, the British could perhaps, with some justification, state that they were responding to Norways inability to stop Getman vessels using Norwegian waters.

But also as stated previously, as it turned out, the Germans beat them to it anyway, and the mining operation was only just underway when Weserubung started.

So no, this whole sorry affair was nothing like the failure to act on the guarantee to Poland - this was just one almighty balls up from start to finish.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 63

RE: House Rules - 2/6/2015 4:43:46 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

Why attack? That can be easily answered: to take the port and make sure the Germans can't use it.

I don't know if the port was destroyed by the retreating British and French or if it was already destroyed by the Germans earlier (I believe that to be unlikely, because of the value the Germans gave the port).

If the port was still usuable when the British and French captured it, I believe that half a division of troops with a small number of planes would have been enough to stay there for a long time. Also, don't forget that in that region of Norway, the Norwegians had about 15.000 to 20.000 man mobilized, of which 8.000 did fight at Narvik. That's a second division, which capitulated to the Germans after the allies left Narvik.

From the Norwegian point of view on this battle, the Allies simply abandoned them, not even wanting to evacuate the Norwegian soldiers...

< Message edited by Centuur -- 2/6/2015 5:48:47 PM >

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 64

RE: House Rules - 2/7/2015 6:48:18 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

If the port was still usuable when the British and French captured it, I believe that half a division of troops with a small number of planes would have been enough to stay there for a long time.

This is not the view of the professional soldier and the man on the ground, General Auchinleck, who spelt out what was required to enable a proper defence of Narvik.

The forces � naval, land and air � he needed, if this wasn't to be a suicide mission - were simply not available given what was happening in France � and the then, real possibility of an invasion of the UK.

quote:

From the Norwegian point of view on this battle, the Allies simply abandoned them, not even wanting to evacuate the Norwegian soldiers...

The first part of that statement is undoubtedly true. You would feel that way wouldn�t you - its natural? As a proud Norwegian, you would feel that your country is being abandoned by your allies. Although in his excellent book The Battle for Norway, Geirr H Haarr makes clear that the true situation the British and French found themselves in was understood by senior Norwegian military. After all - by that time Norway was essentially lost. For her to be free again the French and British needed to stay in the fight - and for that they needed men and equipment in France and - ultimately - the UK.

As to the latter part of that sentence, that is simply untrue, and militarily makes no sense. The withdrawal communication that was advised to Defence Minister Ljungberg at the start of June made quite clear that the evacuation was open to as many Norwegian troops that wished to fight on from the UK.

As far as the Norwegian navy is concerned, many ships did sail for the UK (please see my write-up in the Norge counter, in which I pay small tribute to the men of the RNN, for details of this) and this included military and non-military vessels. But as Haarr questions in his book, there is an �unanswered question as to why the Norwegian military and political leaders did not intensify their efforts to have as many as possible of the experienced soldiers, sailors and officers taken to Britain � where they would have formed the nucleus of the Norwegian armed forces that would need to be developed again. Admiral Diesen encouraged all naval personnel to sail to continue the fight for a free Norway but there is little evidence of any active measures being undertaken�.

For those that chose not to go � no doubt they had their motives - and that was up to them. There is no criticism from me for those that stayed. But to say the British did not want to evacuate them is absolutely false.
24,500 service personnel were evacuated thanks to a combination of:

- Secrecy of the operation
- The ability to take Narvik prior to the evacuation
- Bad weather
- Good luck
Given that luck was on the Allied side for a change, in that early war period, no doubt many more could have been accomodated.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/7/2015 11:52:17 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 65

RE: House Rules - 2/7/2015 8:19:26 AM

Rasputitsa

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
The next development was that the British would mine Norwegian territorial waters (to stop German shipping using these waters) and when that provoked a response from the Germans the Allies would land troops that just happened to be aboard ship and ready to intervene.

It was a bit more complicated than that, the Allied intervention in Scandinavia was to be carried out with the agreement of Norway and Sweden. The planning and ship loading was based on an agreed passage, a transport mission rather than an assault landing. When permission was refused, mining the waterways was the next best thing, this provoked a German invasion, but the Germans were not asking permission, they always knew that such an action would be an assault landing and had prepared accordingly. Essentially Germany had its retaliation prepared in advance, planning for 'Weserubung' starting in mid-Dec. 1939.

The Allies may have had ships and men available, but they had not been prepared, nor configured, for the mission they finally had to carry out.

The British trashed their position in North Africa in a hopeless attempt to help Greece against invasion, as politics, emotion and pride often forced operations doomed to fail. Which is hard to replicate in games where the players have read the books and are not so ready to sacrifice for anonymous icons and counters. Real war is different.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 2/7/2015 9:58:20 AM >

_____________________________

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

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

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

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 66

RE: House Rules - 2/7/2015 9:29:32 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
The next development was that the British would mine Norwegian territorial waters (to stop German shipping using these waters) and when that provoked a response from the Germans the Allies would land troops that just happened to be aboard ship and ready to intervene.

It was a bit more complicated than that, the Allied intervention in Scandinavia was to be carried out with the agreement of Norway and Sweden. The planning and ship loading was based on an agreed passage, a transport mission rather than an assault landing. When permission was refused, mining the waterways was the next best thing, this provoked a German invasion, but the Germans were not asking permission, they always knew that such an action would be an assault landing and had prepared accordingly. Essentially Germany had its retaliation prepared in advance, planning for 'Weserubung' starting in mid-Dec. 1939.

The Allies may have had ships and men available, but they had not been prepared, nor configured, for the mission they finally had to carry out.

The British trashed their position in North Africa in a hopeless attempt to help Greece against invasion, as politics, emotion and pride often forced operations doomed to fail. Which is hard to replicate in games where the players have read the books and are not so ready to sacrifice for anonymous icons and counters. Real war is different.

warspite1

I don't think you've read my earlier posts - and my underlined comment was thinly veiled sarcasm. I know how complicated it was because I have read the war cabinet discussions, those between the British and the French, the communications with the Norwegians and the Swedes.

Permission had already been refused - hence the revised tactic of reacting to German reaction. There was no real plan for what to do about Sweden had they landed in the second scenario.

The Allied "planning" for action in Scandanavia was a total mess from start to finish - an absolute buggers muddle. Yes of course it was easier for Hitler; international law and the rights of individual neutral countries were totally irrelevant to him - that makes planning an attack a lot simpler

.

The problem was not just the way things were loaded aboard ships - but the fact that "plans" were made up as they went along. So in the most famous example, a unit bound for Namsos? was diverted to Narvik at the 11th hour. Trouble was, the ships had the equipment aboard for units that had already landed elsewhere.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/7/2015 10:58:27 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 67

RE: House Rules - 2/7/2015 9:49:33 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Which is hard to replicate in games where the players have read the books and are not so ready to sacrifice for anonymous icons and counters. Real war is different.

warspite1

True - although is perhaps countered to an extent by the fact we are armchair generals presiding over cardboard or pixel armies. E.g. we have been discussing the unwillingness of the British to leave units in Narvik - units that would effectively be asked to sacrifice themselves as they would be devoid of the assets (AA weaponry, heavy weapons generally, air cover, naval support) that was too badly needed elsewhere. In WIF I would be inclined to leave a corps there simply to cause my opponent problems

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/7/2015 10:50:14 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 68

RE: House Rules - 2/7/2015 9:57:10 AM

Rasputitsa

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
The next development was that the British would mine Norwegian territorial waters (to stop German shipping using these waters) and when that provoked a response from the Germans the Allies would land troops that just happened to be aboard ship and ready to intervene.

It was a bit more complicated than that, the Allied intervention in Scandinavia was to be carried out with the agreement of Norway and Sweden. The planning and ship loading was based on an agreed passage, a transport mission rather than an assault landing. When permission was refused, mining the waterways was the next best thing, this provoked a German invasion, but the Germans were not asking permission, they always knew that such an action would be an assault landing and had prepared accordingly. Essentially Germany had its retaliation prepared in advance, planning for 'Weserubung' starting in mid-Dec. 1939.

The Allies may have had ships and men available, but they had not been prepared, nor configured, for the mission they finally had to carry out.

The British trashed their position in North Africa in a hopeless attempt to help Greece against invasion, as politics, emotion and pride often forced operations doomed to fail. Which is hard to replicate in games where the players have read the books and are not so ready to sacrifice for anonymous icons and counters. Real war is different.

warspite1

I don't think you've read my earlier posts - and my underlined comment was thinly veiled sarcasm.

Permission had already been refused - hence the revised tactic of reacting to German reaction.

The problem was not just the way things were loaded aboard ships - but the fact that one of the plans was altered at the 11th hour meaning that troops were landed in central Norway, while their equipment headed to Narvik.

The Allied "planning" for action in Scandanavia was a total mess from start to finish - an absolute buggers muddle. Yes of course it was easier for Hitler; international law and the rights of individual neutral countries were totally irrelevant to him - that makes planning an attack a lot simpler .

No sarcasm is intended, I was merely highlighting the text to which my comments apply. My point being that the Allied intervention in Norway was doomed for several reasons, one of which was that that although the Allies had planned for a Scandinavian intervention, it did not initially involve an assault landing. Conversely the Germans started planning from as early as Dec. 1939, for what was always likely to be an opposed landing.

I have read your previous comments and am not disagreeing with you, but attempting to amplify a some of the detail.

_____________________________

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 69

RE: House Rules - 2/7/2015 10:00:46 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
The next development was that the British would mine Norwegian territorial waters (to stop German shipping using these waters) and when that provoked a response from the Germans the Allies would land troops that just happened to be aboard ship and ready to intervene.

It was a bit more complicated than that, the Allied intervention in Scandinavia was to be carried out with the agreement of Norway and Sweden. The planning and ship loading was based on an agreed passage, a transport mission rather than an assault landing. When permission was refused, mining the waterways was the next best thing, this provoked a German invasion, but the Germans were not asking permission, they always knew that such an action would be an assault landing and had prepared accordingly. Essentially Germany had its retaliation prepared in advance, planning for 'Weserubung' starting in mid-Dec. 1939.

The Allies may have had ships and men available, but they had not been prepared, nor configured, for the mission they finally had to carry out.

The British trashed their position in North Africa in a hopeless attempt to help Greece against invasion, as politics, emotion and pride often forced operations doomed to fail. Which is hard to replicate in games where the players have read the books and are not so ready to sacrifice for anonymous icons and counters. Real war is different.

warspite1

I don't think you've read my earlier posts - and my underlined comment was thinly veiled sarcasm.

Permission had already been refused - hence the revised tactic of reacting to German reaction.

The problem was not just the way things were loaded aboard ships - but the fact that one of the plans was altered at the 11th hour meaning that troops were landed in central Norway, while their equipment headed to Narvik.

The Allied "planning" for action in Scandanavia was a total mess from start to finish - an absolute buggers muddle. Yes of course it was easier for Hitler; international law and the rights of individual neutral countries were totally irrelevant to him - that makes planning an attack a lot simpler .

No sarcasm is intended, I was merely highlighting the text to which my comments apply. My point being that the Allied intervention in Norway was doomed for several reasons, one of which was that that although the Allies had planned for a Scandinavian intervention, it did not initially involve an assault landing. Conversely the Germans started planning from as early as Dec. 1939, for what was always likely to be an opposed landing.

I have read your previous comments and am not disagreeing with you, but attempting to amplify a some of the detail.

warspite1

No I wasn't accusing you of sarcasm toward my comment - but making clear I was being unapologetically sarcastic of Allied plans in Norway.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 70

RE: House Rules - 2/7/2015 10:23:53 AM

Rasputitsa

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

quote:

warspite1
No I wasn't accusing you of sarcasm toward my comment - but making clear I was being unapologetically sarcastic of Allied plans in Norway.

OK, my misunderstanding, but this early war period is full of events, which the concentration on 1944 and after have overshadowed.

Totally off thread, but it was chilling to stand on the beach at Dieppe, one evening, and wonder how anybody thought that troops could cross 300 yds of open esplanade, overlooked by the castle above. Difficult to see the position the Allies were in, trying to play catch-up, and how many tragedies that caused.

_____________________________

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 71

RE: House Rules - 2/7/2015 7:14:03 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

So why attack the place in the first place at all then, was more of my point. If there were so many good reasons not to defend it, that begs the question - why go get it?

I believe it was an interview with J.R. Colville, assistant private Secretary to Neville Chamberlain. This interview, and hopefully I've got the right fellow, is in episode 2, "Distant War" of the World at War series. This interview gave me insight into the thinking of the time by the allies. My impression is that the Brits, and French, in 1939 and early 1940 through, or hoped, that the Germans wouldn't want a repeat of WW1 and, therefore, wouldn't invade Western Europe. Instead, the allies hoped (wanted) WW2 to be fought and settled on distance battlefields, such as Norway. Operation Wesenbung was launched by the Germans on April 9th and almost a month before they launched Case Yellow. While the campaign by the allies was a total mess it makes more sense to me if I can see it in the context of expecting (hoping) that WW2 doesn't expand to Western Europe.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 72

RE: House Rules - 2/7/2015 7:30:35 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

So why attack the place in the first place at all then, was more of my point. If there were so many good reasons not to defend it, that begs the question - why go get it?

I believe it was an interview with J.R. Colville, assistant private Secretary to Neville Chamberlain. This interview, and hopefully I've got the right fellow, is in episode 2, "Distant War" of the World at War series. This interview gave me insight into the thinking of the time by the allies. My impression is that the Brits, and French, in 1939 and early 1940 through, or hoped, that the Germans wouldn't want a repeat of WW1 and, therefore, wouldn't invade Western Europe. Instead, the allies hoped (wanted) WW2 to be fought and settled on distance battlefields, such as Norway. Operation Wesenbung was launched by the Germans on April 9th and almost a month before they launched Case Yellow. While the campaign by the allies was a total mess it makes more sense to me if I can see it in the context of expecting (hoping) that WW2 doesn't expand to Western Europe.

warspite1

I thought brian brian was referring to Narvik, but if he was referring to Norway in that question, then yes, what you say was part of the Allied thinking; get WWII as far away from France (and the UK) as possible - hence the spiffing wheeze to bomb Caucasian oilfields

However, as also said previously, this was not the main reason for intervention in Norway. The reasoning was actually sound i.e. stop German access to iron ore.... it was just the way they went about it that was wrong politically, militarily and morally!!

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 73

RE: House Rules - 2/7/2015 8:06:12 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

So why attack the place in the first place at all then, was more of my point. If there were so many good reasons not to defend it, that begs the question - why go get it?

I believe it was an interview with J.R. Colville, assistant private Secretary to Neville Chamberlain. This interview, and hopefully I've got the right fellow, is in episode 2, "Distant War" of the World at War series. This interview gave me insight into the thinking of the time by the allies. My impression is that the Brits, and French, in 1939 and early 1940 through, or hoped, that the Germans wouldn't want a repeat of WW1 and, therefore, wouldn't invade Western Europe. Instead, the allies hoped (wanted) WW2 to be fought and settled on distance battlefields, such as Norway. Operation Wesenbung was launched by the Germans on April 9th and almost a month before they launched Case Yellow. While the campaign by the allies was a total mess it makes more sense to me if I can see it in the context of expecting (hoping) that WW2 doesn't expand to Western Europe.

warspite1

I thought brian brian was referring to Narvik, but if he was referring to Norway in that question, then yes, what you say was part of the Allied thinking; get WWII as far away from France (and the UK) as possible - hence the spiffing wheeze to bomb Caucasian oilfields

However, as also said previously, this was not the main reason for intervention in Norway. The reasoning was actually sound i.e. stop German access to iron ore.... it was just the way they went about it that was wrong politically, militarily and morally!!

I have to say that I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion on Norway. I have to say it's as entertaining and informative as watching an episode of World at War or World War 2 in Color. You guys should do your own documentary on WW2. I'd watch that too!

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 74

RE: House Rules - 2/7/2015 8:24:37 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

So why attack the place in the first place at all then, was more of my point. If there were so many good reasons not to defend it, that begs the question - why go get it?

I believe it was an interview with J.R. Colville, assistant private Secretary to Neville Chamberlain. This interview, and hopefully I've got the right fellow, is in episode 2, "Distant War" of the World at War series. This interview gave me insight into the thinking of the time by the allies. My impression is that the Brits, and French, in 1939 and early 1940 through, or hoped, that the Germans wouldn't want a repeat of WW1 and, therefore, wouldn't invade Western Europe. Instead, the allies hoped (wanted) WW2 to be fought and settled on distance battlefields, such as Norway. Operation Wesenbung was launched by the Germans on April 9th and almost a month before they launched Case Yellow. While the campaign by the allies was a total mess it makes more sense to me if I can see it in the context of expecting (hoping) that WW2 doesn't expand to Western Europe.

warspite1

I thought brian brian was referring to Narvik, but if he was referring to Norway in that question, then yes, what you say was part of the Allied thinking; get WWII as far away from France (and the UK) as possible - hence the spiffing wheeze to bomb Caucasian oilfields

However, as also said previously, this was not the main reason for intervention in Norway. The reasoning was actually sound i.e. stop German access to iron ore.... it was just the way they went about it that was wrong politically, militarily and morally!!

I have to say that I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion on Norway. I have to say it's as entertaining and informative as watching an episode of World at War or World War 2 in Color. You guys should do your own documentary on WW2. I'd watch that too!

warspite1

If you really enjoy history, you might like this wonderfully informative series

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd03JCA&index=2&list=RDqWXTdN4kOKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrMBHZWe2S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN7y0Sb0s6Y

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/7/2015 9:28:00 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 75

RE: House Rules - 2/7/2015 8:52:16 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

If you really enjoy history, you might like this wonderfully informative series

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd03JCA&index=2&list=RDqWXTdN4kOKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrMBHZWe2S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN7y0Sb0s6Y

I do. I'll check them out. Thanks!

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 76

RE: House Rules - 2/7/2015 8:56:07 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

If you really enjoy history, you might like this wonderfully informative series

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd03JCA&index=2&list=RDqWXTdN4kOKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrMBHZWe2S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN7y0Sb0s6Y

I do. I'll check them out. Thanks!

warspite1

I take it from your avatar that you are from across the pond? If so I hope the joke comes across well - they way these guys dig at each other is just like we did at junior school when getting into arguments!! A superb piece of observational comedy

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 77

RE: House Rules - 2/8/2015 7:25:05 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I take it from your avatar that you are from across the pond? If so I hope the joke comes across well - they way these guys dig at each other is just like we did at junior school when getting into arguments!! A superb piece of observational comedy

I thought it was a hoot! I really do enjoy the English sense of humor. Last night I watched a BBC satirical movie on WW1, "The Wipers Times." I haven't researched the subject but the beginning and ending of the movie left me the impression that it was based on true characters and a true story. Though funny I think it did capture the futility and senselessness of WW1.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 78

RE: House Rules - 2/8/2015 7:46:41 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I take it from your avatar that you are from across the pond? If so I hope the joke comes across well - they way these guys dig at each other is just like we did at junior school when getting into arguments!! A superb piece of observational comedy

I thought it was a hoot! I really do enjoy the English sense of humor. Last night I watched a BBC satirical movie on WW1, "The Wipers Times." I haven't researched the subject but the beginning and ending of the movie left me the impression that it was based on true characters and a true story. Though funny I think it did capture the futility and senselessness of WW1.

warspite1

If you want to learn everything about WWI look no further than this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WHSkbM9zAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeF1JO7Ki8E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDQ1ljlnSjU

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 79

RE: House Rules - 2/8/2015 7:48:41 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I take it from your avatar that you are from across the pond? If so I hope the joke comes across well - they way these guys dig at each other is just like we did at junior school when getting into arguments!! A superb piece of observational comedy

I thought it was a hoot! I really do enjoy the English sense of humor. Last night I watched a BBC satirical movie on WW1, "The Wipers Times." I haven't researched the subject but the beginning and ending of the movie left me the impression that it was based on true characters and a true story. Though funny I think it did capture the futility and senselessness of WW1.

warspite1

I can't believe I never saw this! Thanks for posting I will see if I can track down a copy. Apparently it is based on a true story.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 80

RE: House Rules - 2/8/2015 11:40:41 PM

AlbertN

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

Rules can somehow enforce historical behaviour.

In WiF though the Allies have a gain from helping a minor (Send X Corps and get a USA Token).

In the "Blocks" serie, tabletop only, for example, if a minor is not helped it simply surrenders (Pretty logically, without the help of a Major Power, a minor cannot hope to withstand Germany by itself, and they'd rather save their own country from being mauled and their cities bombarded). Which frankly is a line of thought I like much more (Alas the game, with other plusses, has also an amount of cons).

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 81

RE: House Rules - 2/9/2015 7:43:07 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cohen

Rules can somehow enforce historical behaviour.

In WiF though the Allies have a gain from helping a minor (Send X Corps and get a USA Token).

In the "Blocks" serie, tabletop only, for example, if a minor is not helped it simply surrenders (Pretty logically, without the help of a Major Power, a minor cannot hope to withstand Germany by itself, and they'd rather save their own country from being mauled and their cities bombarded). Which frankly is a line of thought I like much more (Alas the game, with other plusses, has also an amount of cons).

warspite1

I thought that's what happened in WIF too? If you do not align a minor to a major power then it surrenders.

Re surrendering you say logical, but again, WWII showed that no behaviour was exactly the same from country to country - but a minor country was more likely to put up resistance than not - regardless of who the major power was.

Italy (Major Power) declared war on Greece (minor country) in October 1940. There was no immediate assistance from the CW (troops did not land until the following March) but Greece did not simply surrender.

Finland (minor country) was attacked by the Soviet Union (Major Power) in November 1939 but they did not simply surrender because no Major Power sent troops to intervene.

Yugoslavia (minor country) had no chance of being helped by the West when attacked by Germany (Major Power) in April 1941. But they too chose to fight and not simply surrender.

Denmark - attacked by Germany - did surrender on orders from the King, before there was much bloodshed, as there was no possible hope of Allied intervention and no hope of meaningful resistance given the size of the opposing forces. WIF models this by making the Danish MIL not appear upon a declaration of war (a sensible change from WIF 5th Ed. I think).

Poland, attacked by Germany, fought. The British and French declared war and the plan was for them to attack in the west. Despite it becoming quickly evident that there would be no promised assistance coming from the west the Poles fought on until the end.

So, on balance, I think WIF treats this aspect pretty well compared to history.

I think rules should encourage, if not enforce, historical behaviour, because that helps to keep the game from becoming too fantasy like.

US Entry is a difficult one to model - I think WIF does this pretty well.

Edit: Spelling

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/9/2015 9:02:07 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 82

RE: House Rules - 2/14/2015 7:15:18 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

Operation Dynamo. In 1940, or 1939, and beginning the turn after Germany accepts an armistice with France, the CW player may only take a combined action, and may not play an O-chit, if there are any CW units in metropolitan France. This rule does not apply if Germany rejects the armistice offer from France.

By the way, I've attached an excerpt from a speech that PM Churchill made in October 1940 to the peoples of occupied France.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 2/14/2015 8:20:43 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 83

RE: House Rules - 2/14/2015 7:28:01 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Operation Dynamo. In 1940, or 1939, and beginning the turn after Germany accepts an armistice with France, the CW player may only take a combined action, and may not play an O-chit, if there are any CW units in metropolitan France. This rule does not apply if Germany rejects the armistice offer from France.

By the way, I've attached an excerpt from a speech that PM Churchill made in October 1940 to the peoples of occupied France.

warspite1

What's the thinking behind this house rule rkr1958?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 84

RE: House Rules - 2/14/2015 7:48:24 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Operation Dynamo. In 1940, or 1939, and beginning the turn after Germany accepts an armistice with France, the CW player may only take a combined action, and may not play an O-chit, if there are any CW units in metropolitan France. This rule does not apply if Germany rejects the armistice offer from France.

By the way, I've attached an excerpt from a speech that PM Churchill made in October 1940 to the peoples of occupied France.

warspite1

What's the thinking behind this house rule rkr1958?

Alcohol? Just kidding.

In (M)WiF the CW player knows that it�s just a matter of time before Germany is at war with Russia and the US. So though they stand alone, they know in the game that they really aren�t alone and will soon get significant help. Historically, after the Fall of France, the British people had no such knowledge and really did stand alone against Hitler and the mighty German war machine. My understanding was that Operation Eagle, the air campaign by Goering and the supposed prelude to Sea Lion; i.e., the Battle of Britain, was really intended to get the Brits out of the war by motivating them to sign an armistice with Germany. But of course that didn�t work and Churchill and the British people stood tall and alone against Hitler at a time when no one else did. The only thing that stood between freedom and a German occupation was the English Channel, the RAF and the RN. I forget the exact number but Britain only had a few ill-equipped and / or ill-trained divisions to repel a German invasion. So, I think it�s gamy for the CW to keep some of their best divisions in France to harass the Germans when Britain�s very survival is threatened.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 2/14/2015 8:49:39 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 85

RE: House Rules - 2/14/2015 8:47:24 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

What if Germany masses on the Spanish border - can they attempt to hold Bordeaux or Bayonne? What if the RAF has already sunk all of the German naval transport and half of the Kriegsmarine on it's way to French Atlantic ports? What if Germany launches a France First strategy and takes Paris in J/F 1940 - can they leave France empty for five more turns? This rule simply won't work.

My story about leaving British infantry in channel ports was intended to illustrate the need for a Manpower rule of some sort in the game eventually. There have been attempts to write one, but they haven't been successful, yet. The computer adaptation should supply game-play statistics to make the creation of such a rule someday not quite so much of a guessing game, I hope.

One of the best Axis strategies in the game is to build a large Italian air force and use it to crush the Russians in 1941.

To prevent things like that, will you prohibit playing the game with only two players? Can the RAF perform air-strikes so the US Army can take political objectives in continental Europe later in the war? The designer of the game has been presented with these same questions for over 20 years now. He modifies it a piece at a time, but it is his call on how to handle these questions.

Ultimately playing World in Flames, you can only replay World War Two but so many times, and ultimately it is a game to play, not a re-enactment. The open-ended game system allows players to explore other things. Too many attempts to close the system would just lead to a forced recreation of the war in every single game and this game would have been gathering dust in closets for decades now. Should the Commonwealth be required to build more ships than the manpower of Great Britain can even supply crews for, as in history? Should Mussolini be required to be an idiot opening too many strategic fronts in the war simultaneously? What would have happened in WWII if Hitler promised Mussolini the coal of the Donbass and the oil of the Trans-Caucasus in exchange for temporarily abandoning his dreams of a new colonial Empire? Should rules prohibit that?

< Message edited by brian brian -- 2/14/2015 9:54:06 PM >

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 86

RE: House Rules - 2/14/2015 9:13:33 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

What if Germany masses on the Spanish border - can they attempt to hold Bordeaux or Bayonne? What if the RAF has already sunk all of the German naval transport and half of the Kriegsmarine on it's way to French Atlantic ports? What if Germany launches a France First strategy and takes Paris in J/F 1940 - can they leave France empty for five more turns? This rule simply won't work.

My story about leaving British infantry in channel ports was intended to illustrate the need for a Manpower rule of some sort in the game eventually. There have been attempts to write one, but they haven't been successful, yet. The computer adaptation should supply game-play statistics to make the creation of such a rule someday not quite so much of a guessing game, I hope.

One of the best Axis strategies in the game is to build a large Italian air force and use it to crush the Russians in 1941.

To prevent things like that, will you prohibit playing the game with only two players? Can the RAF perform air-strikes so the US Army can take political objectives in continental Europe later in the war? The designer of the game has been presented with these same questions for over 20 years now. He modifies it a piece at a time, but it is his call on how to handle these questions.

Ultimately playing World in Flames, you can only replay World War Two but so many times, and ultimately it is a game to play, not a re-enactment. The open-ended game system allows players to explore other things. Too many attempts to close the system would just lead to a forced recreation of the war in every single game and this game would have been gathering dust in closets for decades now. Should the Commonwealth be required to build more ships than the manpower of Great Britain can even supply crews for, as in history? Should Mussolini be required to be an idiot opening too many strategic fronts in the war simultaneously? What would have happened in WWII if Hitler promised Mussolini the coal of the Donbass and the oil of the Trans-Caucasus in exchange for temporarily abandoning his dreams of a new colonial Empire? Should rules prohibit that?

Wow.

The beauty of house rules are they are just that. What may be the taste for one group, I play solitary so I'm a group of one, may not be for another. I like to play these sorts of games as a historical simulation allowing for things to happened that were historically possible. Of course defining what things were historical possible / feasible is a major, debatable task in itself. The problem with games like this is that players have knowledge of key events (i.e., Russia entering the war, the US entering war) that wasn't known in reality. My proposed house rule isn't to force the historical but is to mitigate knowledge in the game that wasn't available in reality.

Personally, I think leaving the BEF in place in France after it's fall is an exploit. The CW player knows France will not last past fall 1940 in most games. A fact that if you told French or British high command of in 1939 would get you laughed out of their offices, if not shot for being a traitor. So in the game, the CW player can position the BEF during the entirety of the French campaign for it's harassing / holding position when France falls. Then use that position to harass and slow the German transition to the Balkans or to the East knowing that if you (CW player) loses the BEF then it's no big deal. And knowing that you won't be alone for long. So I put my proposed house rule forward not as a proposal for changing the game but as a rule that would make the game play more historical?

By the way in the answer to your other questions I (personally) won't propose rules to limit possible political decisions that took the war realistically in a different direction.

Also, my latest iteration, added organized and a dow by German on Spain.:

Operation Dynamo. In 1940, or 1939, and beginning the turn after Germany accepts an armistice with France, the CW player may only take a combined action, and may not play an O-chit, if there are any organized CW units in metropolitan France. This rule does not apply if Germany rejects the armistice offer from France or declares war on Spain.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 2/14/2015 10:31:18 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 87

RE: House Rules - 2/14/2015 10:10:15 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

But an essential problem with rules like that is that the players have knowledge of the rule, just as they have knowledge of history. And a crafty Axis player could exploit the heck out of that rule.

Also an interesting Allied strategy is the "All-In" BEF. 3 CW HQs, some guns, some tanks, infantry, some cutting-edge Spitfire models; leave defense of the Mediterranean to the combined navies, particularly if the Italian army is just sitting around guarding the airplane factories, or perhaps a British DOW already sank the Italian TRS, freeing up a lot of army assets for deployment in France in hopes to force the Germans to use Offensive Chits to reach Paris. Perhaps it could work, and the Germans fail on a Gotterd�merung attack on Paris in Sept/Oct 40 and will then have to start over in the spring of 1941. But what if Germany takes Paris? Then the CW can only take combined impulses in Nov/Dec 40 in some attempt to extricate this force? What if a risky German attack gets lucky and takes Paris in Jul/Aug, and an unlucky Allied counter-attack fails? Again this rule discourages a possible line of play as now a large BEF is half-paralyzed by Combined impulses.

Or the Germans take Paris in May/Jun, and stack up on the Spanish border, but don't declare war until this rule essentially forces the British to leave France?

Or the Germans spend 4 BP a turn on U-Boats for a year and the British decide it might be best to hold onto Brest and Bordeaux for as long as they can? But then this rule prevents them from taking a Naval impulse to properly escort their convoys?

I could go on.

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 88

RE: House Rules - 2/14/2015 11:05:32 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

But an essential problem with rules like that is that the players have knowledge of the rule, just as they have knowledge of history. And a crafty Axis player could exploit the heck out of that rule.

Also an interesting Allied strategy is the "All-In" BEF. 3 CW HQs, some guns, some tanks, infantry, some cutting-edge Spitfire models; leave defense of the Mediterranean to the combined navies, particularly if the Italian army is just sitting around guarding the airplane factories, or perhaps a British DOW already sank the Italian TRS, freeing up a lot of army assets for deployment in France in hopes to force the Germans to use Offensive Chits to reach Paris. Perhaps it could work, and the Germans fail on a Gotterd�merung attack on Paris in Sept/Oct 40 and will then have to start over in the spring of 1941. But what if Germany takes Paris? Then the CW can only take combined impulses in Nov/Dec 40 in some attempt to extricate this force? What if a risky German attack gets lucky and takes Paris in Jul/Aug, and an unlucky Allied counter-attack fails? Again this rule discourages a possible line of play as now a large BEF is half-paralyzed by Combined impulses.

Or the Germans take Paris in May/Jun, and stack up on the Spanish border, but don't declare war until this rule essentially forces the British to leave France?

Or the Germans spend 4 BP a turn on U-Boats for a year and the British decide it might be best to hold onto Brest and Bordeaux for as long as they can? But then this rule prevents them from taking a Naval impulse to properly escort their convoys?

I could go on.

All valid points. Being new to (M)WiF I'm getting a sense that leaving the BEF in France and taking up residency in Bordeaux or some other French port is the norm? If so, that's what I'm trying to address because I feel that's an exploit, in general. But concede that in certain circumstances it isn't (e.g., the cases you described above). However, if leaving the BEF in France after its fall isn't the norm, then I'm making a mountain out of mole hill (i.e., addressing a non-issue). Maybe I'm doing that regardless, but for the way I like to play I just don't like the BEF staying in France after it's conquest. But again, there are exceptions such as an all out CW commitment to France (e.g., your 3 HQ case).

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 2/15/2015 12:05:58 AM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to brian brian)

Post #: 89

RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 12:29:00 AM

etsadler

Posts: 148
Joined: 4/27/2011
Status: offline

The real beauty of a House Rule is that you don't have to play with it if you don't want to! If its not for you, then no harm done. Also no harm done if the group next door does play with, and enjoys, that particular House Rule.

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 90