Shaka of Carthage

The problem with representing US Merchant losses to Axis subs, is that you would have to model the entire US war effort and the allocation between the different fronts (Pacific and Europe). As it is now, the US MPPs only represent a portion of what the US produced, as the Lend Lease MPPs are already built into the Russian and UK production models. Too much work for too little gain.

Whats even sadder, is that when you get to Iraq, you won't be allowed to drink there. Video games are a poor subsitute for Thai stick. Thank goodness, at least one of the benefits of my war, was women, alcohol and drugs. Some of my predcessors, used to complain about not being able to vote or drink, yet able to die for thier nation. Progress is measured in baby steps. Btw, I hope you have been running a few miles every morning... you have haven't you? If not, I suggest you start, since getting your endurance up and being able to handle the constant running, is probably the only thing you can do now to help you get thru boot camp.

Whats even sadder, is that when you get to Iraq, you won't be allowed to drink there. Video games are a poor subsitute for Thai stick. Thank goodness, at least one of the benefits of my war, was women, alcohol and drugs. Some of my predcessors, used to complain about not being able to vote or drink, yet able to die for thier nation. Progress is measured in baby steps. Btw, I hope you have been running a few miles every morning... you have haven't you? If not, I suggest you start, since getting your endurance up and being able to handle the constant running, is probably the only thing you can do now to help you get thru boot camp.

Slapaho Interesting. From what you wrote, I think we are looking at what SC is and what SC can become from the same viewpoint. Your HQ idea in effect, have the HQ acting as the supply funnel for buildups prior to the launch of an offensive. In theory, Mr H is already doing that by the effect that a HQ has on the readiness of a unit. The Air Superiority zone does address some of the problems with the Air units, but I think the Air is way beyond a fix. The effect it has on the game system needs to be redesigned. Not to mention that your 50% bonus to ground combat is way to high. Nice to see someone with a different take on some of the ideas that have been posted in the past.

While it may be a fun variant for a game, playing with no tech, I wouldn't go so far as to say it would give you "historically correct" results. Playing with preset options and no tech investment, per pzgndr's suggestion would be a better way to represent that.

I qgree that the Allies abandonment of Poland was one of the tragedies of WWII. I believe France should have more blame in this than the British. Though I have read accounts that stated the British were the ones who were being the hardliners, pulling the French along. Bill101 Do you have any idea of the breakdown of the Polish Army? I show them with 43 divisions, but I don't know how many are infantry, cavalry, etc. More importantly though, do you know how many artillery peices the Polish to&e gave to a infantry division? I'm also assuming these are 75mm pieces (like the French), with heavier pieces (if any), kept at higher level HQ's. And what source are your referring to? Different readings over the years, or do you have a reference source? Its seems to be hard for the informal historian to find information on the Polish OOB.

Bill101 What specific weapon where you referring to? I know the Germans had a 37mm "anti-tank" gun, which the Russians either copied and/or developed a larger one. Is that the weapon you were referring to? I was thinking more along the lines of a anti-tank rocket launcher (ie bazokka/panzerfaust(?)) for the infantry, not a crew served weapon. I do agree that the Polish strategic situation was rather hopeless. I don't agree that the French soldier didn't show good "fighting spirit". It was the French leadership (military and political) that gave up, not the French soldier.

Actually, there is a post WWII example of a nation that subsituted armor for manpower... Israel. They needed the financial backing of the US (ie US Military Aid) to equip themselves, but due to thier circumstances, they were able to produce the best tactical army in the world using a armor heavy concept. Somewhere in the late 60's or early 70's, they went too far with the armor and sufferred due to the neglect of the infantry arm. Thats when they started to raise "paratrooper" units to increase the quality of the infantry. They even went so far as to develop thier own tank, the Merkava (?), which very few will argue against, is the best defensive tank in the world. Poland and the Low Countries, didn't have the advantage we do, of hindsight. During thier day, the defensive doctrine ruled (which France heavily invested in), and strategic airpower was an alternative (which worked for the British). Its not hard to understand why the Low Countries felt it was better to have a military that supplemented the major power (France), and hope that if thier neutrality was violated, that France and the UK would rescue them. Poland though, was between a rock and hard place. Neither Germany or Russia was in favor of Poland existing, so Poland had to look to France to guarantee its survival. Its almost impossible for a minor nation to follow a military doctrine that is different from its major nation supporter. Though we hear about Germany and the British writers who advocated it, it was really Russia that believed in armored warfare. The experiences of the Russian Civil War and the vast distances in Russia, "proved" that it would work for them. What Poland really needed, was a better intelligence service, that informed them of the Russian developments, so they could develop a counter... along the lines of anti-tank weapons. Polish Infantry divisions equipped with effective anti-tank weapons would have been the most cost effective solution for the Polish military. It would have prevented a quick defeat, which would them allow the Polish allies to reinforce Poland.

Though not as popular, I find that you get a better game when the FREE FRENCH option OFF.

I'd also suggest that you find a copy at the library before you decide to purchase it. This is not really a book that you "read". Its more of a reference. Also be aware, that Ellis is really a starting point for having a understanding of the topics other authors write about. For example, "The Ineffective Soldier: Lessons for Management and the Nation" by Greenberg, has three books about the US mismangement of its manpower. Really helps in understanding how the US had problems with combat soldiers for 90 divisions, while the Germans and Russians were cranking out hundereds of divisions.

This brings up an interesting problem. If you give the Benelux its proper forces, how do you ensure they fall as quickly as they did in real life? Its the same problem on a lesser scale, that you have with France '40. Benelux had thirty one (31) combat divisions. Netherlands had one (1) motorized division, Belgiums had two (2) cavalry divisions and the rest for both were infantry divisions. Thats almost a million men who were mobilized, but suppossedly they were less trained and had less equipment than the French. That works out to... Netherlands ....... two (2) Corps Belgiums .......... two (2) Armies, one (1) Corp As the SC Air units represent 1000 aircraft, Benelux doesn't have enough combat aircraft to represent a SC Air unit. I didn't record the naval ships, so I don't know how many they are. Benelux has nine (9) hexes, of which only three (3) (behind the river line) need to be defended. Even if you have Benelux units beyond that river line in the northernmost hex, there are still enough units leftover to defend the three important hexes. If the Germans have experience bars (which they should), we can represent the differences between the training and skill sets among the infantry. In theory, attacking German infantry should weaken the defenders enough to create a gap. Luft attacks would be needed to remove the defender(s) of Brussels. Then the German Armor should be able to exploit the gap in the line and take Brussels. Benelux falls. Issues that would need to be resolved would be stacking; German paratroopers; Armor breakthru (ie ability to move after combat); and Operating moves. There may be others. With the experienced German units being in Poland (gaining even more experience), it makes sense for Germany to use those units against Benelux. So we have one reason for four to five months elapsing after the fall of Poland before the invasion of Benelux. Limiting Operating moves and the readiness effects of movement should make it take most of that time to shift from Poland to the West. You could also make a case for weather effects on Luft (ie cannot conduct combat in WINTER or even most of FALL). Work the about out, and you've solved 80% of your issues for getting a historical result in France '40.

Without bothering you with the details of how I calculated it, here are the results I came up with... Corp = four (4) divisions Army = eight (8) divisions Tank = four (4) divisions (should be mechanized or armor divisions) US, because of the liberal amounts of artillery and non-divisional support units, become Corp of 3, Army of 6. Should not have Tank units. Italians, because of lack of artillery and two regiment division, become Corp of 6, Army of 12, Tank of 6. Russian "Army" (post Barborossa), is a SC Corp. I don't remember if I manipulated the number of divisions in that unit. Russian "Shock" or "Guard" Armies should be a SC Army or Tank unit.

Thank you Mr H, that would be the book. There are some inaccuracies in the book, but "reading" it should give you an idea if you want to pursue this sort of thing. Most people don't want to bother with this level of detail. Ok, now to the number of divisions I promised you: NATION ...... 1939 ........ 1940 ...... 1941 Germany .......78............189.........235 (includes areas absorbed by Germany, but not nations allied to Germany) Hungary.........6.............7..........10 Romania.........11............28.........33 Bulgaria........12............14.........14 Italy...........66............73.........64 Finland.........14............17.........19 Poland..........43.............2..........2 Netherlands.....12 (3 were in NetherEastIndies) Belgium.........22 Yugo............34 France..........86............105 UK..............9..............34.........35 (remember, this is worldwide) Australia.......0..............7..........10 India...........3..............5..........10 New Zealand.....0..............1...........1 South Africa....0..............0...........3 Canada..........0..............1...........3 Russia.........194............200.........220 US...............8.............24..........39 Since the above is global, might as well include the rest. China......... estimate around 300 .......... Japan...........36.............36..........39 The above do not include divisions that were never intended for frontline combat. So security, training, inactive, coastal, garrison, etc divisions are not above.

japinard You use the Campaign Editor to modify the beginning tech levels and the number of chits a nation has. "extra 3 chits, placing it in IT and cannot remove until reach level 5" Thats a House Rule that the player has to follow. There is no way to do that automatically in SC.

If we understand why certain nations were not invaded, then the game system can model those conditions. Then, even if the player decides to go ahead and do a invasion, the game system will let him, as long as he pays the cost. One key to this understanding, is that most wargames have a poor understanding of economics. Hence, you get a "Borg" effect, where one side gobbles up a neutral, becomes stronger, which allows them to gobble up another neutral, becoming even stronger, and so on. Thats not how it works in real life, and thats why Germany didn't become an economic powerhouse, because it gobbled up the neutrals of Europe. If the economic and diplomatic models have the proper relationships, than you don't have to have a bunch of special rules to handle those situations. The player will be in the same position as his historical counterpart, and faced with the same geopolitical choices.

Yes, I can tell you how to gather that information. My DSL at home isn't working, so I can't give you the info right away, since I can only send stuff thru the work computer. I assume all you really want, are enough numbers so you can build '39 Order of Battles for the major nations? I can give you, in a day or so, the number of divisions that each nation had in 1939. There are a couple of things you have to determine how to handle however... difference in relative combat power between the various divisions of different nations. neutral nations in SC, if you are gonna activate them or not. how to mesh the different to&e's into the generic units that SC uses. Those three should give you enough to start thinking about how to handle the problems. Lastly, if you wanted to purchase one book that has this information, I'll give you the name later on, since I can't remember it exactly now. (JerseyJohn or anyone else, you remember the name? Ellis something or other, Statistical survey something or other? The one that lists the economic numbers and military strengths of the majors pre and during WWII?)

I'll agree as well, that a historical wargame should be realistic in how it portrays the cause and events of the era its representing. To be fair, I don't believe that SC represents itself as such. It is frustrating to those of us who want a historical wargame, without that game going the complexity route to achieve realism. SC has the mechanics in place, without having extremely complex rules for the player. Granted, thats not to say that the majority of us understand the supply rules for example, in thier entirety, but thats the nice thing about SC, we don't have to. The cause and effect are there, wheter we appreciate it or not. Could you imagine a game that has the complexity of a World at War (ie A3R/ERS), yet those details are handled by the computer, resulting in a manual that is no longer than SC's?

Iron Ranger Here is my reasoning why the Russian units were "forward deployed". Non-aggression pact was signed in Aug '39. Units from the Ukrainian district and Belorussian district (which became Fronts) were used to take over eastern Poland. The Poles resisted. Oct '39, the Baltic states were forced to sign a mutual assistance agreement with the Soviet Union. Six, seven months later they were given an ultimatum to join the Soviet Union. They resisted and troops were sent to enforce the ultimatum. June '40, Romania was pressured for Bessarabia(?) (ie modern day Moldova, I get confused what is was called back then). They didn't agree, so troops were sent to take the area by force. So what you have, are Russian forces being used to occupy areas that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact gave them. Most of those areas had to be invaded. Hence, supplies were pushed up front, to support the military units that were basically performing occupation duties. I'm sure, that just like in Iraq, as the new "government" came into power, they used those troops to hunt down and eliminate any resistance. Avatar My statement that Stalin was not able to conduct any offensive actions was in reference to Germany and Russia being at peace with each other, due to the non-agression pact. And the post you wrote, that follows this one, basically says the same thing I did about Stalin conducting any "preventive" invasion against Germany. Once the war started, the conditions that applied to the above were no longer valid. "The German Army: 1933-1945"... If this is the same one I'm thinking about, yes, I read it a few years back. [ January 21, 2004, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Iron Ranger The earliest Stalin was considering a conflict with Germany was no sooner than '42. You've got to sift thru all of the political agendas of the people who are publishing translated Soviet material. The whole idea that Stalin was going to launch a "preventative war" in '41 against Germany, comes from a May '41 proposal by Zhukov that was published in a number Soviet journals. A Soviet immigrant, who wrote a few books under the pen name of Victor Suvorov, is the guy who started this. Some European historians, lapped this up when it first came out. Some Russian historians, also have accepted this as the truth, since it serves the political purpose of making the Soviet regime look bad. The short version is that Zhukovs proposal, which called for a offensive against Germany in July, is accepted as truth, due to the actions that Russia took between the late 1930's and June of 1941. As any former military officer can tell you, especially those who have served in a planning capacity, various plans are made for all types of potential actions. No doubt, somewhere in the Pentagon, there are plans to take over the Saudi Arabian oil fields. But that doesn't mean, that the Gulf Wars of '91 and '03 are the preliminary steps for that action. Stalin knew there would be a future war between Germany and Russia. But he hadn't started purging the Red Army officers until '37, and was at it when Germany invaded. There was also acceptance (verified by translated documents within the last 5-10 years), that the Red Army due to its performances in the Winter War (vs Finland), needed reform. Even the actions against the Japanese in '39, showed that the Red Army needed time to equip, but more importantly, replace its officer leadership. Even if Stalin agreed with Zhukov's plan, he needed time to get his new officers familiar with thier commands. Especially since his expierences in the Russian Civil War gave him an understanding of what needed to be done for military effectivness. And with Japan conducting its "border excursions", Stalin was more worried about what the Japanese were going to do than Germany. When you look at all of those details, with some appreciation of how the military really works, it becomes clear that Stalin couldn't conduct any offensive actions, even if he wanted to, until '42. Whats kinda interesting, is that the current day Russian military, is looking at various options on how to reform themselves, since the "Soviet" model hasn't performed so well for them. They are examining Russian military traditions before the Soviet era, to see if there isn't something in thier history that can be brought back to solve thier current problems. One of those things, are officers who come from the enlisted ranks. Its pretty much a given, that "mustangs" are your most effective combat leaders. These of course, are the same guys that Stalin was scared of, since he blamed them for the Russian Civil War.

Lets not forget, that in real life, Germany declared war on the US. So the real question is, even with the Allies winning and Germany DoWing the US, would the US had entered the war in Europe? I believe the US still would have entered the war, but in this case, would have reduced the troops that they sent. Since we are talking "what ifs", how about a real what if, something that would shock eveyrone as much as the German-Russian nonaggression pact did? How about somewhere in '41, the US and Japan entering a Non-Aggression pact that secretly divides the Pacific in specific spheres of influence? That would have kept the US out of the war in Europe completly, since part of the secret agreement would be to get rid of British and French possessions in the Pacific.

Liam So true. A Unit Editor would solve 90% of SC's problems, with a Terrain Editor solving another 5%. That last 5% does require logic hence software changes, but its not that difficult to remember a few House Rules.

Liam While I think both of us agree about the problem, you have to be careful with broad statements like the game design is flawed. SC is an excellent game design for a balanced game that has a WWII flavor. It fails miserably as a historical wargame of WWII. Again, you are correct, that a WWII wargame is basically centered around combat on the Eastern Front. All other theaters are sideshows to this main event. The Fall of France is a very interesting issue. Its very interesting to see how wargames handle this and try to deal with the problems it presents. No player of France, will operate under the same assumptions that the French High Command did. So the big question has always been how to recreate that in a wargame? We all know that German armor can penetrate the Ardennes forest, so we don't treat it as impassable terrain and put our weakest units opposite it. And how to create the loss of will the French High Command suffered, as soon as the Germans broke thru Ardennes and headed for the coast, cutting off the French Armies that had moved into the Low Countries? Not to mention the expectations of wargamers, who if they can't recreate the fall of France as quickly as the Germans, believe the game system is broken. One of the reasons the Fall of France is considered one of the greatest campaigns in the history of the world, is because the Germans did what they did, as fast as they did. Instead, wargamers have made it some sort of expectation that the game system should allow a historical fall of France as the standard, and allow for better results. Then again, who wants to play a WWII game, where France doesn't fall? Thats where some of the recent topics make sense, stating that they want start the WWII campaign in '41. It is possible for a historical SC to be gamed. I've spent the last six to nine months modifying, playing against other people and creating House Rules to achieve that effect, in the '39 Historical Campaign. In my most recent game against Kunniworth, his defense of France (which does start with a HQ and a Armor unit) cost Germany dearly, which in the long run, may cause the Axis to lose. The ebb and flow of the battles in North Africa, in almost all of my recent games, have a closer historical feel to them, than any vanilla game of SC I've played. But get ready for the resistance from "players", who don't want to hear why Germany should never be allowed to invade Sweden, Spain or even Vichy France. Or why France shouldn't be able to disband its Naval units, or Italy shouldn't have more than eight (8) ground units. So yes, I too want it to be more historical. I want historical forces, I want the same economic constraints to apply that limited certain units, but with the ability to change those constraints if certain strategic choices are changed. I want the same political constraints that prevented Germany from invading Spain. But I also accept the fact, that if the campaign starts in '39, that doesn't mean that France will fall in '40 or Russia gets invaded in '41. That is the price we pay, since we operate from hindsight.

Liam I understand much better now your point about the HQ's. I don't agree that the Germans have HQs and the Allies don't, because it gives the Germans the ability to blitzkrieg. The lack of HQs takes away the French ability to launch an offensive on turn one (into Germany), while the Germans deal with Poland. If you want to follow the historical path, the lack of HQs for the Allies doesn't hurt them at all. You're absoulety correct about the scale and tactics. Most wargamers have a common conception about what blitzkrieg means and how to represent it on the wargaming table. The only problem is that those conceptions are based on a grand tactical or even operational scale. Not a Grand Strategic level. You can't represent the battlefield tactics, though you can represent the battlefield effects at this level. [ January 18, 2004, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Liam Currently, SC doesn't reflect national differences. So you have the Greys vs the Reds. For you to turn those Greys into Germans, one of the other things you have to do, in addition to what we discussed, is give them experience bars. Its something the French don't have and maybe only the BEF for the British has. I'm a little unclear about your references to the leadership and HQ's, and the point you are trying to make. That whole issue about the "real" economic power of the USA/USSR has been debated over and over, so there's no point in going over it again. I've tried to make my point clear where I stand on that issue.

Les the Sarge I don't believe so. The organization of the generic units seems to suggest that an Army has eight (8) divisions, Corp has four (4) and a Armor unit has four (4). Reducing the Armor size just gives you more units so you can use a different approach. But the problem with the factors is still there. Its a very valid point, that the infantry units over the years, changed thier organizations to reflect the different approaches various nations took to deal with armored vehicles. The R&D tech levels, I feel, model that quite well (if you fixed the Heavy Tank tech). While I agree that the French should be given a Armor unit, its alot easier to not give them one, and not have to deal with all of the ahistorical problems that arise because we as players operate from hindsight, and with a Armor unit, France is just a little bit tougher to beat. But the British should never be allowed a Armor unit for quite a few reasons. Like the French (and Americans), the British used tank units to support infantry. They suffered from a lack of coordination in combined arms ability, mainly because the British Army was based on Regiments, not Divisions as the basic combat unit. And just like the French (and Americans), the cavalry tradition meant the "Armoured" Regiments (ie the Cruiser tanks) acted like Napleonic Light Cavalry. In other words, they had the tools, but not the doctrine. So its lot easier to make sure that the Anti-Tank tech, not only handles the anti-tank weapons but also handles the infantry support tanks (what the Germans later called Assault guns). Generally speaking, it does. Liam Lets not forget, that a Armor unit on the defensive, can take care of itself. Its Soft Defense factor, is the same as a Army unit. The problem is more with the players, as most SC players push the Panzer units way too deep into the enemy rear. We also have to be careful when we talk about blitzkrieg, because there really were two different types of blitzkrieg... one being the "classic" one, which works when the defenders have no anti-tank weapons to defeat your armor (ie France '40); and a real blitzkrieg, which is what the Russians eventually were able to show the Germans in the latter years of the war.