Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Edwin P.

Another Idea - 5% USSR Attacks Allies after Axis Defeated

Recommended Posts

I would like to see a 5% to 10% chance for the USSR declaring war on the Allies after the Axis is defeated. The AI assumes control of the USSR and the human player controls the Western Allies; France, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Given the likely superiority of the USSR after Germany is defeated this should make for a most interesting and balanced game. The low chance of it occuring, just 1 in 20 (or 1 in 10) games, makes it something that will surprise and challenge the human player, and any game reviewer.

[ May 28, 2005, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course, you can toss into that idea, the idea that every once in a great while italy will join the allies. Or germany will attack italy after taking france (that's one pet peeve with SC1, I should be able to do something so whacky as attack italy if I really want to, I mean, it's not like it'd be that easily taken over, but it'd certainly be a change of pace.

Of course, deep down, what I wish to see, but I don't think will happen, is for attacks to cost money for the country ordering the attack. so the player would have to plan ahead to determine how many offensives he or she would buy. So, for example, say germany plans to make oh... 20 attacks next turn, if each cost 3points, that'd be 60 the player would spend, which would represent logistics, supply, planning and coordination.

of course, if you want to be really out there, particularly in a game where offensives can only bought seasonally (winter, spring, summer etc), make it so whoever buys the most offensives gets to go first for that season (then alternate). It could make for some interesting bidding wars if someone had made an amphibious assault at the end of the last season. and if you run out, well you can buy 'impromptu attacks' but they'll cost more, and not apply towards the initative.

just some thoughts to compliment the above topic, which I think would be a fun addition for the 'WTF just happened' value smile.gif

-Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edwin,

It's an interesting idea. Rommel wrote some private notes on this that were later collected as part of The Rommel Papers. In that part of the book he predicted that the Western Allies would fall back to the Rhine and perhaps even farther west but the Soviet line of supply would be pulverized by allied air power and afterwards the Soviet armies themselves would be devastated after Allied air supremacy was achieved and they were able to strike the Russians at will.

I think he was completely correct and I think the Russians themselves felt that way.

Aside from which, they received hundreds of thousands of casualties during the last month of the war and an equal number during the preceeding months. They may not have been as overwhelmingly powerful on the ground as is commonly assumed.

But all things considered, I do believe there is historical merit to this and would especially have been if the Soviets had been clearly more powerful in Europe than the west at war's end.

-- Of course, it has also to be considered that, unlike Britain and the United States and even France, the Soviets had a devastated nation to their rear with years of recovery ahead of them even without another, potentially far worse war to fight.

-- -- Stalin doesn't appear to have taken the A-bomb as a very serious threat. His inteligence on it was so thourough that he probably knew the United States could only make two or three a year (at that time) and he felt the USSR had survived the equivalent of 20-30 A-bomb droppings in the German invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JerseyJohn,

I agree, the Soviet supply was streatched and the infrastructure they controlled was devastated, as compared to the infrastructure in the West - France, Low Countries, Italy, which was relatively intact.

But, the Russians had one big advantage - Russia is a lot closer to Western Europe than America.

[ May 28, 2005, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main concern lies with Human vs Humans.

Really! I Mean how long can anybody play against the computer?

What stage are we at with this game?

Sure any idea could be integrated into the game at a later date.

The game is on!!!

The Demo is as good as out. next in line is multi-player on line.

I have not seen a WWII Multi-player computer game that is worth playing!

There are few multi-player computer games out there worth playing at all.

Is there any ideas on how SC2 is going to overcome this Multi-player gayness among computer games?

Will there be individual wins (option), even among ones own allies?

Loads of questions. Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Edwin,

It's an interesting idea. Rommel wrote some private notes on this that were later collected as part of The Rommel Papers. In that part of the book he predicted that the Western Allies would fall back to the Rhine and perhaps even farther west but the Soviet line of supply would be pulverized by allied air power and afterwards the Soviet armies themselves would be devastated after Allied air supremacy was achieved and they were able to strike the Russians at will.

Not a chance in the beginning at least. Russians would have steamrolled the allies as they did in august in Manchuria with the japanese. Germans slowed down allies without air-cover for almost a year after d-day.

In the air yes in the short run the figures would be roughly 30,000 allied vs 17,000 russians.

Allies would put up 63 infantry divisions, 25 armoured and some brigades against what 300 or more russian divisions?

Rommel never fought the russians, and he learned about allied airpower in north africa the hard way so he was probably kinda dellusioned about it.

[ May 28, 2005, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edwin & Kuni,

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but ...

Supplies -- The Russians were having trouble bringing enough up to keep offensives going during the last days of the war. They'd have needed to stockpile (vulnerable to US & British bombers) and also there was a lot of rail road track to be converted from narrow to wide guage before they could bring large amounts of supplies to Central & Western Europe.

Nunbers -- 300 vs 80 or so is deceptive because Soviet divisions were much smaller than their American counterparts. Also, the Russians had very high casualties late in the war. The cut through the Japanese in Manchuria in large part because they had much heavier equipment and a lot more aircraft. Facing the Americans they would have been greatly outnumbered in the air and their heavier tanks might not have fared well for the same reason.

I think it's a push. They'd have gained ground for sure, as I said, I think Rommel was right, they'd have pushed the Allies back to the Rhine and after that the advantage would have shifted dramatically in favor of Allied air power.

-- Also, with U. S. Lend-Lease being cut off they'd have faced a lot of shortages that they didn't face historically.

After having lost something like 35,000,000 million people to the Germans I think war weariness would have set in very quickly, especially in a war that would have been hard even for Stalin and the NKVD to shove down their throats. At some point there's always a breaking point and I think Stalin was thinking along those lines as the war came to an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Edwin & Kuni,

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but ...

Supplies -- The Russians were having trouble bringing enough up to keep offensives going during the last days of the war.

Which offensives are we talking about here? Zhukovs? Tolbukhins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were spread from the Baltic to the Balkans. All along the line the Soviets always needed to halt so supplies could catch up with their front lines. If they'd been able to move without those delays most of the German Armies would have been bagged instead of being able to retreat after Kursk.

Army Group North was turned into Army Group Kourland by Hitler, removing it's 44 divisions from the Soviet's path into Poland, to be cut off instead in the Baltic States. Yet, even with the subsequently weak German lines facing them the Soviets needed to stop repeatedly to replenish.

Are you saying the Soviets didn't need to stop for prolonged periods to allow a slow supply line to catch up with the new front line? Every army needs to do that at some point, but bringing supplies forward was especially difficult for the Soviets due to a number of factors (among them dirt roads and the need to convert railroad guages).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all a UK infantry division consisted of about 18,000 men, and armoured divisions of 14,000 men with 300 tanks(light and heavy).

US infantry division around 14,000 men and armoured division consisted of 11,000 men with 2-300-400 tanks and anti-tank-weapons.

A soviet division consisted of 10,000 men and a mechanized tank corps and/or tank corps of around the same amount of tanks.

So I don't agree that the soviet divisions were that much smaller. You can argue that the soviet was in a bad state at the end of the war but there is no facts available how battered they were. In fact most of the soviet losses came months before the final attacks on Berlin and Vienna when the ukrainian and belorussian fronts crossed vistuala and advanced into Poland.

When it comes to lack of supply the

Soviet lack of it was as you say nothing new. The red army functioned under these condition all the way back since the beginning of the war and learned to survive. Lend lease most of all provided valuable trucks which were vital and there was a constant shortages of them. But to say that the soviets would outrun supply and not be able to press their attack on the allies as they did with the germans lacks as I see it real proof. Of course they would have stockpiled before an assault on the allies, as every combatant in ww2 did before a major offensive. That's nothing new.

Interesting is how the battle would be fought. This will be a great sc2 scenario if someone wishes to create one(I will spend my time making a large eastern front scenario, just read Zhukov's memoirs smile.gif ). But I honestly think that russians would have steamrolled the allies in the beginning. Shermans against IS-tanks? You kidding me?

Airwar would have been interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by John Hugo:

Everybody should be able to fight everybody. This variety will give the game more longevity.

That is something that we have all been pushing since day one.

Especially for the possible continuation of WW2 after the fall of the Axis. Basically acting as if the political leaders had listened to their Generals (who I agree were right) to end Stalin's dictatorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF the USSR does not attack (5% chance).

I still would like the option as the East Allies to "delcare war on USSR" at the end of the game vs. the AI. If you choose to do so, you can then choose which side you which to play.

Same thing vs. players, East Allies attack USSR, in a more than two player game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the basic thought of a Russian follow up attack at the western allies. If nothing else it will give the allied players something new to think about as the war against Germany is finishing.

However, why not make it an option for all Allied players? Why should the US/UK player not be given the option of finishing of the”red menace” while their soldiers are in mainland Europe anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Kuniworth on his argument. Soviet Tanks at the end of the war were more than capable of dealing death to any German tank and would have destroyed any and all Allied armour with ease,...it wouldnt have been any effort at all!.

Allied airpower may have been superior at the end of the war,...im not sure of that myself...but, i do know that the Russians were very capable of cranking out huge numbers of aircraft each month and never-never seemed to have any difficulty in finding pilots to pilot any and all aircraft they built!.

Yes...this would be a very-interesting scenario!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kuni

I said all armies had to stockpile before launching an offensie. ALL ARMIES!!!

And stockpiled munition dumps are extremely vulnerable to air attack. The West would have had massive air superiority ergo a huge advantage in disrupting Soviet stockpiles. I think that in itself would definitely have affected the Soviet ability to steamroll.

-- Aside from which I also said I thought the Soviets would push the Western Allies back to the Rhine or perhaps a little beyond before running out of steam. How far back do you want the line to be drawn? Paris, London, New York?

-- You admit they had a chronic shortage of trucks and U. S. Lend Lease filled that void. Well, if they're suddenly at war with the U. S. they aren't going to get any more Lend Lease trucks and that chronic problem suddenly becomes much worse.

As I said, yes, it would be interesting and I even said in many ways it would be a push (no advantage to either side) but I see no reason to say the Soviets would have an advantage because I'm convinced they wouldn't. What's more, the longer such a war lasted the worse off they'd be.

The United States would have developed it's next stage of strategic bomber, a larger version of the B-29 with a much greater range and in 1946 it would have been dropping the first A-bombs on Soviet cities. Russia had nothing capable of shooting them down if they were flying at maximum altitude.

-- Presumably the Soviets would have been developing the early MIGs by then, benefitting from captured German jet technology, but the U. S. and British also had jet programs going by war's end with the UK having functional jets late in the war. They weren't as good as the German jets, but they'd have been improved upon with captured technology and German scientists.

Anyway, I'm not saying it wouldn't interesting, it would have been. I'm saying that in the long run I don't believe the USSR could have won it. Stalin, beyond a doubt, considered this alternative and felt he had a lot more to lose than he had to gain.

Retributor

Naturally the T-34 was a great tank, probably the best in the world at the time. The basic model was American and the U. S. Army passed on buying it because the Grant and Sherman were already in the final stages -- yes, what the hell were they thinking, I agree! :D So the designer took it to the USSR, where he received some but not all of the payment he was supposed to have gotten. Be that as it may, it was the Soviets who had it and the United States had nothing that could have stood up to it.

However, the massive U. S. bomber mission on St Lo in 1944, left many German accounts of the Panzer Lehr Division's Panthers and Tigers being tossed about as though they were toys with the division itself being destroyed as a functioning unit. That was accomplished entirely by strategic bombers being used to hit concentrations of armor.

Additionally, the Soviets lacked radios -- they weren't producing many of them because so much of their industry was tied up in actual weapon production. Only the Soviet command tanks had one, a limited use AM radio, with the other tanks in the unit receiving their commands by flags run up on the lead tank. Primitive. The Germans always knocked out the command tank first and from there the rest were completely leaderless. By contrast, every German and Western Ally tank had it's own radio and they were superior in quality (FM) to the ones in the Soviet command tanks.

The Soviets did not have radar and in many other ways would have been fighting at a great technological disadvantage against both the Americans and the British. By 1945 a techology gap on so massive a scale, combined with not being able to achieve air parity, would have been extremely important factors.

The gap in technology was so great that it was several years before the Soviets were able to reverse engineer the half dozen B-29s they confiscated in Siberia.

Add to all of this that it was the U. S. that came into all of the German rocket technology and scientists at the end of the war.

** My conclusion is that it would indeed make for an interesting scenario and I'd like to see it.

-- My opinion on the outcome, from an historical basis, however, is that the USSR couldn't have won it. Also, I'm sure Stalin drew the same conclusion for much the same reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...Maybey you might be correct JerseyJohn...but, im still not convinced!.

The Russians were already in Berlin 'in-force'...and as Kuni says...had had a history of coping with cronic supply shortages,...it wouldnt have taken too-much to go after the Allies who already were straining at their end-limits at the furthest end of their supply-lines for fuel and supplies.

Yes...the American Bomber's were extremely efficient at destroying the German Panzer's...but, then again...the German's had next to no Air-Force to oppose them to protect their Panzer's. The Russians on the other hand had a sizable Airforce...and could by enlarge keep that from happening!.

As to whether the Russians could go after the High-Altitude Bombers, Again...at this moment i have no answer for that. The Japanese were on the verge of having such fighters available...but the war ended before they could come into play!. So, now if the Russians were to make peace with the Japanese...they just might get those interceptor Jet-Plans from them...or may have been working on them anyway...all the Russians needed was an engine...they already had plans for some of their Jet-Fighter's.

Also ...as stated before...the Americans had-no-more-'A-Bombs' left!. So what more perfect opportunity for Stalin to take all of Europe???.

Let's see what some of the other's have to say...this should be very-very interesting!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tactically the russians would have had an advantage with tanks and experience. Lets assume that the Allied vs Russian fighting would have broken out after at least 3 months time. ( the USSR threw all it had into taking Berlin asap and needed refit and resupply ) The war against Japan would have been over with the Soviets holding Manchuria and Korea.In Europe assuming the allies could see this coming they could have set up defenses on the west side of the Rhine.

On the strategic level the allies would have had the Soviets nearly surrounded with most if not all of thier oil and industry east of the Urals in bomber range from bases in the middle east thru India. The tactical air war would have been an advantage for the Allies in better planes/training/pilots. The German airforce was able to operate against the soviets long after they were done in the west. German pilots with 100 plus kills against soviet air was not unheard of- ( one as high as 352 )

The Soviets supply lines would have been thru lands where the people would have been very unhappy thinking they were now looking at a new occupier. Troops would have been needed to control massive populations and areas. They would have had to fear raids/ or coastal areas such as in 1920. Their navy would have been totally out-classed and not much threat.

What about combat losses at this point- the Soviets with a population similiar to that of the USA had lost 7 million combat deaths. The USA lost 400,000. That has to figure in how long and how many more losses they could take in the USSR.

So the bottom line is could they push the allies back from the Rhine river defended by a few million troops ( maybe even german troops defending France? ). Could they force a river crossing contested by such numbers? Would they be able to fight a protracted war while facing massive bombing? Certainly the allies never had faced numbers like the russians would have used, but would that be enough? They were not sure for nearly 40 years after, when they would have had the same or similair limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the way, should this not be the other way around?

It was the East Allied Generals that wanted to engage Stalin knowing full well what to expect. But the East Politicians had enough of war and worked out the "cold war".

So the way I see it, it is more likely the East would push to defeat the USSR, as if the East Generals point of view had gone favorably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, Russia would have 'won' by seizing the rest of Germany, as well as the rest of south east europe that they didn't have. You guys are imagining a slug-fest, another world war III, but chances were likely that Stalin would have taken what he could by force, and then made peace with the West as soon as it was practible. Soviet industries, far from Allied Bombers (unlike Germany's) could not be bombed, and therefore could churn out much more equipment that would have been readily on hand. I'm not saying they could have waltzed through all of western europe, but they certainly could have taken another large chunk. In a scenario like this, Stalin could have justified more aggression by stating that Russia's losses were far greater than those of most combatant nations. The West would have fought, but most likely the Rhine and Alps would have been a barrier to further aggression. And would the Allies fight to gain back those possessions? 90% not. Besides, Germany caused Russia so much grief, the West might have allowed the russians to keep Germany under its boot! It would still be the Cold War like we know it, but with the Iron Curtain around a 1000km west of it's historical position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Americans would have regarded it as a second Pearl Harbor and fought right to Moscow, even if it ended in 1970, dropping nuclear weapons all along the way.

Soviet industries were not too far away to be bombed even with B-29s, and another super-bomber designed for trans-Atlantic runs was also in the works.

Edwin, regarding your question, no, I'm sure the United States would not have made a negotiated peace with Japan under any circumstances.

And if the USSR pulled a sucker punch it would have treated that country exactly the same way.

The United States had three A-bombs in mid-1945 (the third made partly out of radioactive material surrendered by a German U-boat that was headed for Japan). It could probably have built 5 A-bombs in 1946, 6 or 7 in 47 and so on. The Soviets, even with stolen American secrets, didn't build a bomb till 1949.

The United States would not have dropped the two A-Bombs on Japan. That was done as much to let the Russians know we had them as to force a Japanese surrender. Instead it would have continued to blocke the Japanese Home Islands, which in time would have forced their surrender. The much talked about secret weapons would have been a bust as Japan had no oil to use them with!

The first two A-bombs would have been used against the USSR. After Russia's initial steam roller it's territory would have been used as target practice for Allied bombers, including A-bomb attacks.

-- I'm not that convinced the Soviet steamroller itself would have been as awsome as it's being made out to be. By war's end the US and UK units in Europe were well equipped with heavy artillery and had very strong air support. To me it's as likely that the soviet armor would have been pulverized as it is that it would have broken through.

-- -- It was suggested that the Soviets might have done this after taking Manchuria and Korea. That's an entirely different situation as it would have been August, not May, 1945, and much of the Soviet Army would have been transferred to Siberia and would now have need to be transferred back to Europe, making the starting time the Autumn of 1945 and an entirely different situation in which there was a few months of peace followed by a Soviet sneak attack in the West.

One key point nobody's mentioned is that Stalin was not a military conqueror. He was forced into WWII and gambled in Korea by extension.

He did that primarily because he didn't expect to be opposed by anyone other than the South Koreans.

-- Earlier, in an ill-advised speech to the Associated Press, US Sec of State Dean Aachisson gave out a list of countries the United States would fight to defend. South Korea wasn't among them and the Soviets drew the obvious conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-- Earlier, in an ill-advised speech to the Associated Press, US Sec of State Dean Aachisson gave out a list of countries the United States would fight to defend. South Korea wasn't among them and the Soviets drew the obvious conclusion.

Reminds me of the statement that the US Ambassador made to Saddam Hussein prior to the first gulf war:

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
Politicians never seem to remember that other countries take what the US says very literally.

[ June 02, 2005, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edwin,

Great parellel, shows that regardless of the party in office we're equally capable of turning things like that into a hopeless fiasco! :(

The Korean situation is particularly tragic. In 1945, having invited the Soviets in, we had no idea of how to deal with them or where they ought to stop. The streamed through Manchuria, as Kuniworth mentioned earlier, and into Korea. At the time the U. S. and USSR agreed that the country should be reunited at some future date but never set a time for working out the details.

The two nations were created when a junior officer named Wm Westmorland (odd how some people start in one mess and surface later in another) to set a boundry line. Westmorland opened a map book, took a ruler, and drew a neat line along the center of what was at the time one Korea. It didn't matter that one small penninsula was divided so the southern part had no land link to the rest of the country!

About the time of Attchisen's talk the United States was pulling it's troops out of South Korea. While this was going on the two countries were saying openly that they intended to invade each other. The US reaction was to limit the South Koreans to small arms and light artillery. Immediately afterwards the Soviets began sending huge numbers of WWII tanks and heavy artillery to the north.

When the North's invasion started, as everyone knows, it crushed the lightly armed South Korean forces and drove them back to the southeast extremity, which barely held through an infusion of poorly equipped and badly trained United States reservists and units from the Japan occupation force, which was also ill equiped for battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...