[WWII Global Scenario Idea: Global Bunta]

Incredible!

Thank you Hubert. Can't wait to play this game, and to see all the things you're doing with it. :cool::)

[WWII Global Scenario Idea: Global Bunta]

Snowstorm, Yes, the diplomacy angle adds a huge dimension to the game. Combining it with the wargame aspect makes things a lot more interesting. :cool:

SeaMonkey, The Scandinavian scheme is historical! It was part of the disasterous trip Molotov made to Berlin. He demanded the rail line across Scandinavia with an ice free port on the Norwegian coast. Hitler left the room. Ribbentrop stayed behind to try and convince Molotov that Germany would soon have Britain sueing for peace when the air raid siren went off. On their way down to shelter Molotov said, "If Britain is so badly beaten then whose bombers are we hiding from?" Possibly Hitler might have negotiated an ice free port deal with the USSR, but Molotov acted in a beligerant and arrogant manner from the start. It's hard to believe he did that on his own so we have to assume he was following Stalin's instructions. In any case there couldn't have been a worse approach. Hitler clammed up and proceeded with his plans to invade the USSR.

Arado, I'm pretty sure I saw that documentary too. If I'm not mistaken the Horton 229 was exactly as you've described it, a fantastic fighter that would most certainly have made mincemeat of anything going against it. The big problem was Germany didn't have glue at that time that was able to keep it from falling apart. It was a flying deathtrap. I remember hearing that few if any record survived the war of this plane's actual combat record. It was used by the Hitler Youth -- again, if this is the plane I'm thinking of -- and again, there just isn't any record of how well they fared.

I don't know if the glue issue was that Germany couldn't have made it, or if they just didn't have right materials to make it at the time the plane was finally put into production.

Like the ME262 it entered service when it was all but impossible to affect the war's outcome. Germany needed the ME262 in 1942. Which might have been possible as Germany had a flying jet prototype in the spring of 1939! It was pushed aside because Goering and his fellow WWI Ace, Ernst Udet, didn't think there was any future in jet fighters, at least not till after the next war had been concluded without them. Probably, with Goering and Udet's backing, the ME262 might have entered service as a dedicated fighter plane as early as 1941; the fools actually scrapped the jet fighter program when Germany invaded Poland.

-- By extension the Hortons, who were very young at the time, might well have had something like the 229 ready for manufacture by 1943.

Lucky break for the Allies that Goering and Udet were running things for the Luftwaffe instead of more competent Nazis. Ironically both men took their own lives; Udet during the war out of manic depression, and Goering to cheat the hangman.

[WWII Speculations Thread]

More a guiding principle than a policy. In practical terms doing it literally would have been impossible, even in Washington's time. Look at American history from the Luisiana Purchase onwards and you can see staying still and not becoming involved beyond our own borders was never our policy.

Following the teachings of Jesus has also never been out national policy, and I thank Jesus for that. No mixing of church of state, that's the policy. As Hueristic used to say, Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion. Thank God.

[WWII Speculations Thread]

By the time Germany took Paris I think the French Army was pretty much destroyed. German troops had actually moved all the way down the Atlantic coast; I don't think the French could have reorganized, unless it had been to the south, where the Germans hadn't sent spearheads, territory that was soon to become Vichy France.

[WWII Global Scenario Idea: Global Bunta]

Wrote this post while Snowstorm and Arado were posting their last two, but I think the comments remain relevant.

Thank you, Arado, SeaMonkey and Snowstorm. Enjoyed all of your posts and yes, SeaMonkey, I do buy into what you're saying. :cool:

Arado, your speculation on WMDs being developed is very significant because with the addition of Norway (heavy water) and the Congo (uranium) Germany would have suddenly been in a much stronger position than she was historically; plus, she'd have been able to progress without having to worry about air and commando raids on her plants.

Of course a big step from there would have been delivery systems. Germany would have needed to develop heavy bombers because rocketry, even with a huge amount of research, would be unlikely to develop to the point of carrying detonating nuclear warheads (as opposed to more primitive small radius dirty bombs) till the historical time of the mid-50s. I'm sure Germany would immediately have begun development of something similar to the B-17, which was capable of carrying an A-bomb, but it would have been some time before it could have something larger, comparable to the B-29.

-- Prior to the war Germany had a flying jet fighter prototype and the UK was beginning to make progress in their own jet research. Italy was working on jet engines and the U. S., though not as advanced as either Germany or Britain was also beginning work on jet aircraft.

Then there were the flying wing designs being developed in both Germany (Horten brothers) and the United States (Northrup?), with neither program seeming to be aware of the other. Perhaps an A-bomb carrying bomber would have emerged from one of those programs.

SeaMonkey Really glad you're enthusiastic about these ideas. I think everything you're saying makes sense. And I'm sure the UK and France, as you said, would have been chomping at the bit to find a way out of their non-aggression pact with Germany, and also a way to alter the favored trade aggreement that would enable Germany to invade the USSR in the first place. France, of course, would have been in a much more vulnerable position than Britain, with her NW coast and the entire northern strip of her country occupied by Germany, making the still existing Maginot Line completely worthless.

Also, from their starting point, it's extremely hard to see either the British or French people having any enthusiasm at all for another war with Germany. I'd give their throwing in with the allies (each guaged individually) a very low probability. In Britain's case it would start at 0 with a very slow climb rate, and with France it would be -25, with an even lower climb rate. Of course both could enter the war, but I think it would take some abusiveness from the Germans; possibly, if the U. S. entered, a demand from Hitler that Britain and France dow the United States. I believe that might well have backfired on Germany.

Snowstorm I think it's more likely that Germany would have looked to exploit anti-British and anti-French sentiments in the Middle East rather than looking for either an invasion of Turkey, or for an invasion of the Caucasus.

I believe it would have gone something like this:

1) Germany reminds Turkey of its war with Greece right after WWI, which was caused by Britain and France backing the Greek government in a bid to grab the Dardanelles. Germany also stokes up old enmities from that time in Russia throwing the Turks out of the southern Caucasus which was signed over to them in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. With the war against Britain and France concluded in Germany's favor, Turkey would not be afraid of backing the losing side. Big shift toward the Axis. Next comes secret negotiations. Germany agrees to help restore the southern Caucasus to Turkey if it joins her in a war on the USSR. I think Turkey, at this point, joins the Axis and begins preparing for the coming war against its giant neighbor.

2) Germany covertly stokes anti-French movements in Damascus.

3) Germany does the same, covertly, in Iraq, sending arms and obsolescent air craft while bringing Iraqi military personal to Germany for training as specialists and elite cadres.

4) Germany woos Iran diplomatically.

5) Barbarossa begins at about the historical time but with Germany having a much greater resource base and not having to worry about a second front. And, significantly, having Turkey allied on its southern flank.

-- My guess is the war ends with the Soviets pushed back to the Urals, a treaty signed, a lot of changes to the map of what had been European Russia, and the truncated USSR, probably with Stalin executed or assassinated by his inner circle, working day and night on the regaining, either through war or revolution, of its lost territories.

-- -- Possible Russo-Japanese alliance? Russia to later strike back into the lost European states with Japan invading The German East Indies!

There's also the question of Germany's lost WWI colonies. After writing the original post I wondered if maybe I should have included that as part of the peace negotiations -- Britain had long been dangling them in front of Hitler as part of other offers, perhaps Germany would have taken them now in exchange for the not supporting any Spanish - Italian efforts to disrupt the British strongpoints of Gibraltar-Malta-Suez/Alexandria.

All sorts of possibilities. :eek:

[WWII Speculations Thread]

You mean we'll have to put the AI on trial for war crimes??? ;-)

Hmmm, It would be great if it plays well enough to warrant it.

BrotherX, Thanks for posting that excellent article.

But our discussion has a slightly different starting point. Germany acts much earlier, in July of 1940, dropping paratroops on a very small part of the English coast with the specific aim of gaining one major British port, presumably Dover. Once the bridgehead is established reinforements are flown in to a captured air field, the harbor facilities taken with supplies and further reinforcements brought in by transport, the Luftwaffe and elements of the Kreigsmarine creating a safe path in which the Royal Navy would be unable to operate. The bridgehead expands in Kent and Sussex, moving west till all of Southern England to Bristol is taken, then turning north to the Thames, and London. Our assumption is that Britain negotiates peace before losing London, the result being a Vichy type settlement with Southern England and the Channel Islands becoming a Reich territory. I think this was not only feasible, but could have been completed before the onset of winter!

[WWII Global Scenario Idea: Global Bunta]

Late Winter 1940

The war in Europe has gone close to its historical course except for the BEF having been cut off in Belgium and, ultimately, forced to surrender.

In Britain the Norway fiasco is blamed on Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty when word comes out that it was, like Galipolli 25 years earlier, his own big project. The government suffers a loss of confidence and falls with one of the moderates becoming the new prime minister. Public outcry is to end the now very unpopular war.

Briatin and France sue for peace after the fall of the Low Countries, a decimated French Army without mobile reserves desperately digging in without hope of victory and, in Britain, every ablebodied man is put in uniform but the loss of the entire BEF makes the situation seem hopeless.

Result:

German terms are exceedingly light. Germany to keep whatever it conquered, including the parts of Northern France where its troops were assembling as negotiations were being conducted.

-- This would be a strip between France and Belgium, several French cities from Sedan on the German border to the Channel ports in Flanders.

Western Poland,

Denmark,

Norway,

Belgium,

Holland,

Luxembourg

and the occupied French territory (Sedan to Flanders) goes to Germany.

-- -- France is not Vichy, it has Paris, Normandy, Brittany etc.

-- Eastern Poland goes to the USSR.

Germany granted rights to conquered Belgium's colony of the Congo

and conquered Holland's colony of The East Indies. German task force led by BCs Gneisnau and Scharnhorst embark with troop ships for Congo. Retrurning to Germany they embark again with troops for The East Indies.

-- Iceland and all other former Belgium, Dutch, Danish and Norwegian colonies granted independence.

Britain and France sign a 10 Year nonaggression pact with Germany and grant favored trade status to the Reich.

The United States congress passes through rearmament legislation and guarantees Iceland's Independence.

-- Adolf Hitler is Time Magazine's man of the year and winner of the 1940 Nobel Peace Prize for ending what threatened to become a war of global proportions.

Meanwhile -- the USSR demands Finland and Sweden allow a Soviet rail line be built across their countries to Norway, where it demands Germany grant a 99 year lease to the USSR for one of the major year round ports.

Hitler does not give a direct answer and, instead, begins shifting armies to its Polish territory. Shortly afterwards Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria join Germany and Italy. German troops and air units begin arriving in Rumania to guarantee its sovereignty against aggression from an unnamed major power.

-- Elsewhere,

*Italy casts its eyes on Yugoslavia and Greece while Ribbentrop visits both countries with offers for them to join the Axis.

*Japan makes a deal with Germany for East Indies oil, rubber and other natural resources, and a similar trade deal with the USSR for other essential resources, enabling it to ignore the U. S. embargoes and proceed further with its war of aggression in China.

*The United States applies pressure on Argentina, Brazil and several other South American states to sign a Western Hemisphere Pact of Nations renouncing ties, treaties and trade with any member of the European Axis. It is accepted immediately by Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Panama and several other states, but does not receive a favorable reception the larger South American nations, who refuse to sign.

At Start -- Scenario begins with all nations at peace; tension between Germany and the USSR; tension between the USA and Germany and the USA and Japan.

All thoughts and discussion welcome. :cool:

[WWII Speculations Thread]

Ohhhh and John, the only war criminals are the losers!

Well, naturally, SeaMonkey.

[WWII Speculations Thread]

And, of course, there should be some provision made for War Crimes Trials. :eek:

[WWII Speculations Thread]

Torch didn't occur until November 42, which was still a lot earlier then a lot of the upper echelon of the Army was comfortable with. Rick Atkinson's excellent book "An Army at Dawn" paints a pretty grim picture of the readiness of the U.S. Army to tackle the Wehrmacht.

Thank you, ebitt, this just reinforces the point being made about how unprepared for war the United States was even at so late a date. Which, I believe is what you're saying as well. :cool:

So many great points being made the past page or two about Germany's chances if in Britain if they'd actually managed, presumably through paratroop drops, in seizing some of the channel ports in Autumn 1940. It's hard to cite who said what at this point but, generally, I find myself agreeing with SeaMonkey and Snowstorm in that there would have been a gradual buildup and then a fanning out; past a critical point if the UK troops hadn't succeeded in stopping the expansion they'd have lost, probably by early summer 41.

1) carverrt's point about volunteer units going to fight in Britain has substance but I believe they'd have been too little and too late. If the Germany army reached the point cited, that of pushing into Scotland and Wales, the war would already have been lost for the UK because London would have fallen and, at that point, strong Luftwaffe units would have been based in Southern England. Germany would have had full control of the English Channel and there would have been nothing to stop them from ferrying as many troops and supplies across as they wanted to bring over. End of story; look at what Germany was able to raise against Russia at this time. Britain, fighting on the German's terms in their own country would not have beaten them. Historically, in Russia that summer, Germany did the equivalent of defeating the UK six or seven times over. By July or August German troops would have taken Wales, done some sight seeing on Hadrian's Wall before moving through the rest of Scotland to take Scapa flow.

Regarding the Royal Navy interdicting German vessels darting across the channel, sorry, I don't buy it. Not with the Luftwaffe sitting on both coast lines, not to mention torpedo craft and U-boats. Look at the Royal Navy's losses off Norway 1940 against air attacks, Crete 1941, and the Prince of Wales and Repulse sunk entirely by air attacks off the Malasian coast a few months later. Operations in the English Channel under the circumstances described would have been to the British what Leyte Gulf was for the Japanese, only without any chance at all of success, only a glorious watery grave.

BrotherX, If the air battles were to be fought over the channel, with some German fighter squadrons stationed in southern England -- concrete runways and good road access! -- with the expanding German bridgehead depriving the British of their civilian air defense spotters and disrupting entire sections of Britain's radar network, then I can't help but feel the balance would have shifted in a hurry in Germany's favor. With the ME 109's not having to worry about flying time (they'd have been fighting right over their own air strips!) and the Spitfires and Hurricane's having to be the ones watching their fuel guages, it would have been the reverse of what happened over London. Further, downed British and Allied fighter pilots would have been killed or captured while surviving German pilots would have simply returned to their squadrons; again the reverse of the historical Battle of Britain situation. A very simple German arrangement: fighters mainly in Southern England, Stukas and other surface attack squadrons along the French coast, and after the first massive losses the Royal Navy would have had to forget any idea of cutting the German lifeline. Or, be sunk.

Once southern England was secure Germany could have made any build up it wanted -- 75 -100 divisions? -- an still been able to shift at least as many east to keep an eye on the USSR. I honestly don't see any of the Britain holds out scenarios being realistic. I doubt the British would have either.

Churchill out, a moderate in, and a peace treaty leaving England south of the Thames in German control and Great Britain left otherwise in tact to continue controling its empire.

As always, my hat is off to Arado for making so many good points in all of this.

-- In the above scenario, with Britain out of the war, I wonder if Germany would have chosen to send troops to gain control of the Belgian and Dutch colonies. The Belgian Congo's huge resources, including uranium. The Dutch East Indies for oil, rubber and a host of other resources. With Germany selling oil and other resources from Indonesia to Japan I have to wonder how the situation would have changed? Would Germany even have invaded Russia? The Middle Eastern governments alligned by force to the UK might well have demanded complete autonomy, and the opening to Germany, rather than Britain, of their oil. Gobally the Union Jack goes down a couple of notches while Germany's influence expands and rises. It's pretty much what Steven Ambrose described in his alternatives to Barbarossa, what he called, "The beginning of a modern Dark Age" with, as he also speculated, the USSR lined up with Germany and Japan.

Except, of course, we'd still need to factor in that clinically insane German corporal, an Austiran trying very hard to prove he was the greatest German who'd ever lived. I can't help but think he'd have turned east regardless of how successful he was anywhere else. But in this scenario there's no second front, and the United States, finally preparing for a war that might well come to it, is still neutral, and not likely to be drawn in on Russia's behalf.

[WWII Speculations Thread]

Continued from above post

If the Germans had been smart and destroyed the B.E.F.when they had the chance England may have sued for peace.Without those 300.000 plus troops getting back Britain would have been prettywell defenseless.Then just drop Paras on an airfield(like in Crete) and start flying in troops.The Royal Navy couldnt do anthing about it.Ultra wouldnt have been really any help yet as it was just barely starting to have any effect.Other than that somewhat risky move Hitler really didnt have much of a chance to take England.

Absolutely. I've never understood why Hitler didn't cut the BEF and French remnants off from the coast. I read somewhere that he felt if he didn't the Brits would see that he'd allowed them to evacuate most of their army, minus its heavy equipment, and would see it as a face saving courtesy. That might be true, but if it is it was his worst delusion of the war.

I see very little historical reference to the use of paratroops and glider infantry to gain a foothole in southern England. No idea why. I can't believe there were too few of them to just grab a port and airstrip and from there the Luftwaffe could have controlled that narrow lane (both against the RAF and Royal Navy) long enough to bring enough troops and supplies over by air to take the remainer of the channel coast. Once that was done armor could have been brought across by freighters. It seems absurd to me that the Brits, despite anything Churchill might have said, would have held back a full scale invasion. Once ashore I think the German armies in Britain would have had a much easier time than they had against the French (in stage II, after Dunkirk, when the French were reorganized and fought well but had no reserves).

Negotiated peace, Germany occupies whatever it took to that point and Britain continueing from the Thames north with a similar arrangement to Vichy France. This would have satisfied Hitler as it would have left Britain's Empire in tact, at least for the moment. I'm sure the colonies would have forced independence through the 1940s, but they wouldn't have been taken by the Japanese, which was one of Hitler's greatest fears -- some alliance!

[WWII Speculations Thread]

I keep reading comments about how the United States wouldn't have stood for Britain being invaded. Where do people get that from?

The American people would not have tolerated any part of North or South America being invaded. Period!

If FDR had tried to force a war against either Germany or Japan, regardless of circumstances, and the United States hadn't itself been attacked, he would have been impeached immediately.

Same case with Truman in 1945; all this nonsense about how he should have gone after the USSR -- guess that means our staunch ally at the time, the country we'd been churning out propaganda films for four years, right, we could have suddenly shifted gears and attacked them because after all, we didn't have Germany to fight anymore? Sure, right, I doubt that could have happened even if we'd been run by the kind of dictatorship we'd just defeated. And we weren't.

Getting back to historical 1941. The U. S. was well into its naval and air rearmament program. The two new classes of fast batttleships with 9x16 inch main guns was starting to either come off the slipways or go into production along with the larger fleet aircraft carriers and all the other vessels that would dwarf everything Japan build during the previous twenty years. The army and Marine Corps were both small; most of the small arms and artillery were going to Britain as Lend-Lease.

Torch took place during early 1942, same as Guadalcanal, and the two stretched the U. S. naval resources so thin that the U-boats had their greatest run of merchant vessel sinking. The UK convoys were left lightly protected because everything was tied up with the landings.

[Re-introducing the Forum and Game Veterans]

Me too. I've enjoyed them. Now duck because no doubt there's going to be all kinds of remarks about how it's just entertainment and not serious investigation, blah-blah-blah.

[Looking for Morsels (cuz I'm hungry!)]

"Familiar he sounds. Place him I can't."

[WWII Speculations Thread]

It's actually a two hour documentary from the early seventies; excellent!

Unfortunately it hasn't been put in DVD form.

Regarding Germany invading Britain, I think it depends almost entirely on when it was staged. If the Germans had gotten a foothold, as I described above, taking one of the key channel ports by paratroop and glider troops in July of 1940, before the British were able to recover from Dunkirk, they'd have been able to grab harbor facilities and airports after which they'd have built up quickly and begun expanding along the coast and inland, again, as I discussed earlier.

Once in Britain I think they could have lived off the land. I can't see England conducting a Soviet or Chinese type scorched earth policy.

It probably wouldn't have been necessary to take London. Somewhere along the line Winston Churchill would have been removed from office and a moderate British government would have come to terms with Germany. Hitler never wanted the British to be defeated, he wanted them to maintain the British Empire. He several times told his aides that Germany had more need to fear a Yellow Empire (Japanese) than a Red (British) Colonial Empire.

Naturally the chances for Germany would have gone down as Autumn set in, and become impossible over the winter, then in the Spring of 41 there would probably have been no chance at all for the initial stage succeeding.

[WWII Speculations Thread]

BrotherRambo, If Hitler had been killed in WWI the ugly guy in the German victory parade through Warsaw would have become leader of Germany. You know, the one who always bitched about Hitler, Himmler and Heydrich being too nice for their own good. :eek:

Actually, I don't think the Nazis would have amounted to anything without Hitler. They were a hand full of windbags when he joined as an army spy and only emerged as a solid entity through his personal fanatacism. Before this Hitler had joined a communist organization and left a little later to be placed in the National Socialists. I think he'd have wound up leading the communists if circumstances had been a little different, though his unbridled anti-semitism would have surely worked against him if were set among socialists, but whose to say, he had the kind of sociopathic personality that might well have changed the entire nature of the group he was in, come up with the brownshirts under a different name and, ultimately, the Nazi party with a different label.

But if he'd been killed during WWI --? I think the left wing German movements would have been much more powerful throughout the 1920s. By 1930 they'd have had the majority vote in the Weimar Republic causing Britain and France to fear a Bolshevik takeover in Germany. They'd have backed former army chief Schleicher, or someone like him, forcing a right wing army controled regime throwing out the Versailles 100,000 man troop limit with the blessings of both the British and the French. The Rhineland, without a garrison to keep it under Berlin's control, would have attempted to become a seperate socialist state and France would have invited the German government to send its army into the territory, declaring martial law. By 1932 a government well to the right led by Schleicher, Hindenburg and von Papen, backed by industrialists and bankers, would have taken firm control after having suspended free elections. They'd next invite the Crown Prince to return and establish a constitutional monarchy modelled after that of Britain. By 1936 or 37 Austria would have voted to join Germany (the Austrians were the ones pushing for unification till the Nazis took over) and the next few years would have seen Germany claiming the parts of Poland and Czechoslovakia with primarily German populations, ending with Poland yeilding to Anglo-French pressure to cede the corridor and Danzig to the Reich, or fight the threatened border war over those territories. Germany would also have received Memel from Lithuania, with the British and French pressuring that country to merge with Poland, giving both access to the Baltic, and the Britsh-French-German alliance a comfortable buffer zone against Stalinist Russia.

The decade would have ended with Germany becoming the European watchdog against socialist expansion into central and eastern Europe, with Britain returning Germany's pre-war African colonies.

No World War II, either in Europe or the Pacific -- Japan, without its Nazi allies, wouldn't move on the French and Dutch colonies and would, instead of military expansion (beyond Manchuria) have been forced to find more peaceful means of dealing with its lacks of resources. My guess would be increased trade with the United States for raw materials, later to include the newly independent protectorate of The Phillipines; Holland for oil and rubber in the East Indies; and with France for the natural resources of Indochina.

A very strong constitutional monarchy in the new German Reich. France saved from its socialist element and able, along with Britain and Germany, to maintain the three European global empires through to the late 20th and early 21st centuries. An industrial powerful Japanese Empire developing Manchuria, holding much of the Chinese coastline and several large inland cities, ultimately pressured by the US, Briatain, France, Germany and Holland to end its war of aggression in China.

Communism contained in the Soviet Union, ultimately changing to a milder variety after the death of Joseph Stalin.

SnowStorm, The accepted wisdom used to be the RAF fighter command would have been destroyed over Southern England if the Luftwaffe hadn't shifted to attacking London. Some opinions on this have changed over the years upon re-examining the basic structure of British airfields, with each fighter parked in its own protected area to prevent the multiple plane destruction that happened later at Pearl Harbor and later on the continent, actual figures of pilot losses -- the Luftwaffe couldn't recover many of their downed airmen even before they shifted farther from the coast, aircraft build rates -- Goering reduced the number of aircraft being manufactured even while his losses were growing larger; meanwhile British aircraft building was being increased to replace losses. Etc & etc

I think, at one point, the Germans could successfully have taken parts of Southern England, but not by the impossible Sea Lion plans. In my view the barges being converted to landing craft wouldn't have worked, most of them weren't even seaworthy and would have been swamped with the loss of most of the troops onboard. As they reached the British coast the troops inside would have been decimated by British infantry defending the high ground and the remaining assault troops, sea sick and heavily reduced in numbers would probably have had a hard time just finding cover and defending where they'd been offloaded without having to try and force their way through barbed wire and defenders without benefit of the naval gunfire support the Allies always had in their own large landings.

I think the only realistic chance would have come if the Luftwaffe regrouped its paratroopers and glider troops and performed a very intense bombing of one particular port city near to the French coast; probably Dover. When they had total air superiority over the chosen city there would be a paratroop drop followed by reinforcing glider troops with the twin objectives of taking the local air strips and harbor. As soon as the airfield was taken more troops would be landed conventionally and, with the harbor taken, still more troops and supplies brought over by ship -- not those hopeless converted barges (they were used later, in the Crimea, under more favorable conditions than the English Channel; but I don't think they'd have been any good crossing from Britain to France).

Once established the bridgehead could be expanded inland, fighter squadrons could be relocated to the captured city, giving the advancing troops better air cover, and the invasion could fan out both along the coast, taking more ports, and inland, toward London. This whole stage would probably have needed to be completed by mid-September 1940; after that the weather would have worked heavily in favor of the British.

[Christmas riot revenge game]

Thank you, BrotherX, Appreciated and glad you enjoyed it.

-- The force has been strong in this thread and I got carried along with with it. Got it out of my system, feeling much better now.

...He had it won! How's that for a 'What If' scenario? If the Allies would have just covered one lousy port, I would not have began my walk of fame. ...

*** Crazy, been 7-years? When is somebody going to write my biography? ***

I started researching it, BrotherRambo, but there's just so much material to cover! :cool:

As for snatching victory from certain defeat -- reminds me of a very old poem, don't remember the author or title, but it went something like this:

For want of a nail a shoe was lost,

For want of a shoe a horse was lost,

For want of a horse a rider was lost,

For want of a rider a message was lost,

For want of a message a battle was lost,

For want of a battle a war was lost,

For want of a war a nation was lost,

All lost, for want of a nail.

[Christmas riot revenge game]

Kuniworth I have no idea what you are refering to but I sure want to see it happen

There was this big SC game once, a long-long time ago in a galaxy far-far away, where one young SC fellow humiliated another young SC fellow and began quoting scripture and praising the legend (himself) and the vanquished adversary had some sort of breakdown, began talking about suicide -- I wonder if that could be it?

[The Plunder Option]

SeaMonkey, BrotherX, Arado and Snowstorm Really pleased you guys like these ideas, hopefully Hubert will have a comment. Most likely it will be a simple wink or roll-eyes. :confused:

BrotherX, How dare you insinuate the Germans are worse than the Italians. I'm not easily offended, but that really does it. -- On the other hand, having a hefty bit of German in me I'm bound to come in first or second unless the Japanese or Mongols become contestants, then the rest of us will have a really hard time in the History's Worst People Award! :eek:

[The Plunder Option]

Thank you, BrotherX. Glad you like them.

I see it as something like:

............(Each having)-- Historical, Ahistorical & 1,2,3 or more options plus randomizer.

Germany

USSR

Britain

USA

France

Japan

Italy

The game, even without dedicated scenarios, could have hundreds of different situations each time it was started. Or, just a basic few chosen by the players. Or, the historical default settings, also chosen by the players.

Not sure how much programming it would entail or if its even possible. I hope it is, and I hope something like this will be done sooner or later if it doesn't find its way into Hubert's design. But, considering he's always taken care to leave room for alternative ideas, I'm sure he's got something in the new global game that will be similar. Looking forward to seeing what it is. :cool:

[Release date?]

The thing is you never know where a thread will lead to. This was proven recently when a thread that was supposed to be about WWII books wandered so far afield that it soon became a discussion of speculations. Fortunately it wasn't locked and we were able to cut and paste those posts to a new thread that is actually about WWII speculations!

In that very long ago Ronald Reagan Memorial thread I remember a lot of good stuff popping up. Along the way there was the inevitable political conflict, which could hardly have been avoided being it was a thread about a former U. S. president -- his only relevance to WWII being movies he'd been in while an actor. I'm pretty sure that thread wound up being locked, and justifiably so, but along the way it did have a lot of good posts.

Liam started a thread probably even earlier than that one, I think it was called Historical What-Ifs of SC that was one of the best I've seen at any website I've ever been a member of. A lot of it was about WWII, but a lot of it ranged from the Ancient Persians, Mayans, Aztecs et al, and generated a lot of interest with people posting in it who never turned up before, or after. Unfortunately that too wound up becoming confrontational and was, in my opinion justifiably, locked.

I think the membership has changed a little over the years, a lot of the confrontational attitude seems to have vanished. From what I'm seeing the people posting here now are interested in discussing things rather than fighting over them.

One of the things I like is there's more of a tendency now to read and respond to posts rather than just writing something that is only relevant to the top of the thread. It used to be particularly annoying because people would pop in writing something as though it were groundbreaking when, in fact, it was being discussed to death already. :confused:

And then there were the guys who just liked to argue, fight, whatever. I guess they were the truest game players because they approached everything as though it were a battle, including other people's posts.

Anyway, having not posted, or even lurked here in so long I'm not about to offer an opinion about how the place is run now. But it seems inevitable to me that it's evolved over the years. From what I see its gotten a lot better and, like Kuni, I hope there will always be room for historically relevant threads and comments: I do definitely remember a time where it seemed the only tolerance was for game mechanics. I don't think it was a deliberate policy, but coming in and reading those threads was downright boring, so I stopped coming.

All forums are best when there are threads in them that have enough diversification so there's something of interest for all the members.

But ultimately it's the moderators who determine what the mood of the place is going to be. Can't say I see anything to complain about since returning. I think what Kuni is regards past actions being avoided in the future. Fair enough as long is its understood it isn't a complaint against present policies, which I don't think it is.

-- I have to add that in the first website I set up I went just a little screwy and kicked something like 70 of its 100 members out in a single week. :eek: That was five years ago. Somehow the place has never quite recovered.

[The Plunder Option]

Exactly, Snowstorm. The Nazis had a large but minority vote in the Weimar parliament. The goverment of Paul von Hindenburg invited Hitler to become chancellor so his followers would vote with the center against the communists. That soon included the government favoring Nazi goons over communist goons in street fights. A short time after that Hitler finished appointing his cronies into key government positions and from there on the country was controlled by Hitler even before the death of Hindenburg. Upon the fieldmarshal's death Hitler had the parliament rubber stamp the combining of president with chancellor, in effect making Hitler the dictator of Germany. The elections that followed, though theoretically free had a lot of activity from Nazi goons, and was only a Yes - No vote. The Nazis won it overwhelmingly. I believe that was last vote held by the Nazi regime. As soon as that was done the first concentration camps were set up, though at first they were for political opponents, mainly communists, not the Jews, who weren't specifically targetted yet. A year or so later anti-Semitism became the state policy with the Nuremburg Laws.

It seemed that at first the idea was to make life in Germany, and then Austria, so miserable for the Jews that they'd voluntarily leave the Reich, even if that meant signing virtually all they owned over to the Nazis.

For those who feel righteous about their own governments in all of this it should be remembered that many nations, including the United States, soon put up barriers agains Jewish immigrants. As the situation in Germany grew worse the U. S. made it more difficult for Jews to enter its borders. FDR didn't openly create this policy, nor did the State Department. Oddly enough it was decided upon by comparatively minor beurocrats who kept changing regulations and creating new restrictions, quotas and paperwork. This went on till something like 1943, when it was finally publicized and FDR was forced to step in. By then, of course, official channels for moving those people out of Europe, the few who hadn't already been killed, were totally meaningless.

BrotherRambo, Nothing was ever going to make either Stalin or Hitler anything but a pair of sociopathic, racist, meglomaniacal, paranoid butchers. At the end of his life Staling was planning to not only purge his leadership (again) but also to start a Holocaust-type persecution of the Jews in the USSR. He'd confided to Beria and others that he admired what Hitler and the SS had done. Strange, since his daughter Svestlana had married a Jew and, consequently, Stalin's grandchildren were half-Jewish.

So, in game terms I'd have this kind of thing entirely as a player option. Something like:

1) Totally Historical -- the Axis player is, in a virtual sense, Adolf Hitler and that's it.

2) Mild Hitstorical -- Perhaps Hitler's luck didn't hold out before the war and one of the wouldbe assassins got lucky. he's replaced by someone who, though not particularly humane, decides the whole Final Solution idea is completely nuts and bends things to utilize the Jews and other targetted minorities toward being part of the production structure. This would become more accute as the war developed. Historically there actually were many officers and other fighting men in the Germany army, navy and air force, who were at least partly Jewish. Field Marshal Milch, Goering's second command in the Luftwaffe, was half Jewish. When confronted by this Goering said, "I am the one who decides who is, and is not, a Jew!"

3) Ahistorical -- Germany is not ruled by a racist regime, but one that is, in other ways, totally fascist.

4) Random, The cumputer decides which of the above three would be used.

There could be a similar set of options for the USSR

What if Stalin had been dumped by his underlings? And the year -- July 1941, when he was hiding in his dacha after the disaster he'd caused, and then worsened when he ordered all fronts to ounter attack instead of reorganizing? -- A few years earlier: the generals band together instead of allowing themselves to be decimated by a vengeful madman; six of the eight generals who courtmartialed commander of the Soviet Armies Marshal Tiemoschenko were themselves executed later on in the purge! -- Stalin never runs the country, Trotsky succeeds Lenin -- Etc & etc, to the effect that there's no purge and also no persecuting of the farmers (80% of the population at the start of the forced commune program), with the effect of the change worked out to the start of the game. And, of course, the final choice would be random.

Similar things could be done for the other major powers, USA, Japan, Britain, France and Italy. Things like FDR losing his attempt at a third term; the president becomes antiwar Wendell Wilkie. -- France does not have its prewar government upheavals -- Britain becomes isolationist, does not become involved when Hitler begins making claims in Central Europe and Poland -- Japan decides on a different sort of policy, or can proceed without worry because FDR isn't US president. -- Italy doesn't throw in with Germany, either remains neutral or is wooed back to the Anglo-French fold.

If all of the choices go to random there could be something like:

Germany -- Ahistorical setting, no Hitler but a nonracist facist regime equally determined to break Versailles and just as expanionist as the Nazis, but without Hitler's determination to slaughter and subjugate concuered populations.

USSR -- Stalin ousted during the 1930s. No purge, no slaughter of Russians, no gulags etc. ... tons of speculation here.

Britain -- Non-continental government, only interest in its Empire and the independence of nations within flying range of the British Isles. No churchill, no Polish guarantee etc & etc; also, no Munich Conference.

USA -- FDR is not elected to a third term; Wendell Wilkie is president. No Pearl Harbor, no Lend Lease, and no rearmament till the foreign wars become directly threatening to the U. S. and its territories.

Italy -- Does not ally with Germany, becomes an British/French ally instead.

Or, there could be any variation on those situations, a lot of different combinations. Or, the player/players can choose specifically what they'd like to test out, or just the basic historical options.

[Release date?]

Yes! Even Caligula and his nephew Nero understood that. :eek:

And with a few posts and a couple of days having passed since the last pothole, I want to say there are two sides to my friend Kuniworth, and his good side, in my opinion anyway, far outweighs the side that creates problems, mainly for himself. His sense of humor, though decidedly eccentric, is a big plus for any website, and at SC he's always been one of the most devoted players and greatest contributors to the forums. When he feels like adding an historical comment I always pay close attention to what he has to say, especially with regard to the USSR (okay, so he's a commie! ).

Anyway, just wanted to add this somewhere. :cool:

[The Plunder Option]

Glad you like them, BrothersX and Rambo and Snowstorm. :cool:

I agree with JJR's idea about fitting diplomacy into this. Eager to hear others ideas on it while letting it rattle around the old noggin.

These ideas would also need to be considered in the whole game context. Germany had, by its eastern standards, a very reasonable occupation of France, Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium, yet there was considerable anti-German sentiment and underground activity in all of those countries.

So I think mild occupation policies would mainly be appreciated in eastern countries. Also, I believe it should be an option for Poland; there's no reason Germany couldn't have accepted the conquered Poles into the Reich treating them as real people instead of subhuman scum. And if they had, how much benefit would they have gained from it, and in what ways? For one thing, I believe a lot of captured Polish soldiers would have been useful serving the Reich as security divisions along the their border with the USSR, beefing up the Reich's defences. And, of course, a better treated Poland would have produced more and not had as much of a partisan movement.

-- As for the issue no one likes to discuss, but I think it has to come into consideration: If we're allowing for a kinder, gentler Germany, what about the Holocaust? I don't think there should be any pretense that the Nazis wouldn't have been rabid anti-semites under any circumstances; unless we're talking about created scenarios that have a kind of Third Reich but without any of the racisms. Getting back to the Holocaust, what sort of realistic game alternatives should be considered?

-- -- Germany remains murderous, but does not opt for the "Final Solution." ??

-- How does this affect the Reich's production and the world's view of it?

-- -- Germany has a real deportation option, selects a conquered region with an already large Jewish population and resettles all other Jewish populations to that region. ??

-- Same question as in above scenario.

-- -- Germany chooses neither, the default being its historical course.

-- What are the game consequences of Germany's historical course? I don't think this should be decided by the player but rather a kind of unlucky default option. I can see it yeilding MPPs in the form of outright robbery done by the state to mass millions, and also the slave labor factor, but overall I don't think it's something sane people would choose. Or anyone with any kind of conscience, even if only a virtual one.

[Release date?]

Hubert, most of the people who have joined during the past several years wouldn't know how much of a work in progress SC-1 was after its release. This certainly wasn't because you rushed it, but because once it went past the play testing phase to actually being picked apart by Kuni, Rambo, Teriff, Zapsweden and so many others all of the untapped potential (such as the adding of arrows for going around the Cape of Good Hope etc) were added, and the inevitable flaws corrected, along with various improvements you came up with, so that after a couple of years several patches were released, each of them greatly improving the game and, in the end, making it heads and shoulders better than the original.

I think you've since chosen to hold back a bit before a release, double checking things you may have missed that the play testers didn't catch either, and always taking advantage of your gained experience.

And that, to me, is much better than releasing a game that isn't quite ready -- I can visualize your comment about how when something changes in development it ripples along, affecting other aspects that seemed in place but suddenly need adjusting as well.

It's like a writer finishing a novel only to realize the main character has a long lost diabolical sibling whose been causing all the trouble in the previous 23 chapters. :eek:

Appreciated Snowstorm. Here's hoping some more of the old timers come back again. :cool: