santabear

Wow. This topic really hits a nerve with me. I'm really not a military history person; my real field of interest is the topic "why nations go to war" and particularly the diplomatic and psychological dynamics that cause wars and that make them so hard to stop. And of course WWII is my favorite topic. I can offer that there is no historical evidence that I am aware of to support the notion that the Allies would have settled for anything less than the unconditional surrender of Germany. There is a lot of speculation and opinion (including some interesting ones on the website Liam mentions), but no documentary evidence of this. In fact, I think there is some evidence that the possiblity of "regime change" was discussed between Churchill and Roosevelt (I don't know if Stalin was ever consulted), and they had agreed that they would never make peace with an anti-Nazi government unless it was on the basis of unconditional surrender. OK. Now here are some of my opinions based on the reading I've done: 1. The Americans and British were waging war on Germany, not on Hitler or Nazism. If the real enemy was Hitler and not the Germans why purposely bomb cities to cause massive civilian casualties and disruption? The Allies were out to kill as many Germans as they could; and they were well aware that not all Germans supported Hitler. Clearly the raids on Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, etc. were not the work of people who thought of Germans in human terms. Hitler or no Hitler, the Allies were determined to give the Germans a lesson in war they would never forget. It worked. 2. No American presidental candidate could ever have been elected (especially not after D day) on a platform of "peace with Germany." It would have been too easy for their opponents to brand them as defeatist. -- Even American presidental candidates who ran on a "peace now" platforms during the Vietnam era got killed in the elections. Nixon's election-winning slogan was "peace with honor" (Woo. Now I've really dated myself!) 3. What the American or British people would have thought is a matter for speculation, but I think the real hatred for Germans and Germany (felt by Americans at least) is easy to underrate 70 years later. 4. Changes of government during a war do not typically make enemies willing to negotiate, those kind of events are an indication of weakness and therefore often lead to a more vigorous prosecution of the war. No one wants to stop a war when they're winning it. The Allies continued to make war on Italy after the overthrow of Musso until Italy agreed to switch sides, for example. There wasn't going to be any peace for Italy short of outright surrender even with a new government. 5. One of the chief devils in the minds of the Allies was "German militarism," and particularly the dreaded "General Staff." A government composed of German generals wasn't going to win any sympathy points from the Allies. 6. Many German generals were war criminals or were heavily implicated in war crimes (including Guderian and Manstein). Again, German generals were not in a position to negotiate with the Allies. The Russians probably hated the German army more than Hitler (though that would be a close call), and after the shooting of British officers at Sagan and the killing of American POWs in the Ardennes (though that was after July, 44) the British and Americans also regarded the German General Staff as a criminal organization (indicted at Nuremberg). The Allies accepted an unconditional surrender from Doenitz, Keitel and Jodl; they never negotiated with them. Keitel and Jodl were unquestionably war criminals. Doenitz probably was, but he got a raw deal based on the case his attorney presented. Otto Kranzbuehler did a great job defending him. 7. One real missed opportunity was the plot of some German generals to overthrow Hitler during the Munich crisis in 1938 (this was screwed up by the British, mostly). If Hitler had been overthrown then there would likely have been ways for Germany to reverse course and still keep a fair amount of her 36-38 gains. I could go on for hours, but I think everyone knows that the "kill Hitler now" button could be left off my copy of SC. (Well, I might push it just for fun sometimes...) But thanks for the opportunity to vent a bit. SB A quick PS after reading Jersey John's posts (how did he sneak them in so fast?): Hitler had syphillis. Check out Robert Conot's Justice at Nuremberg for more details (the damn book is at home where I can't get it, but at least I remember this citation) PPS I've been living in Europe for some time now. Europeans, for the most part, like Americans. They tend to get frustrated with our government sometimes, that's all...but then, so do some Americans. [ April 04, 2003, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Two thoughts: 1. In games against AI, it always seems to me there is a greater payback for AT (those stronger infantry units become really tough), than for heavy tanks. 2. Rabtherab's post reminded me of the (Guderian?) quote: "The most powerful weapon of the tank is its tracks, not its gun." If you wind up in positional warfare, the tank doesn't help much. Tanks, corps and air used in concert can work to keep the battle fluid enough to conduct maneuver warfare. And in that, the tank is essential. I think that one of the things the Red Army got very good at was in developing tactics to "soak up" the Blitzkrieg's momentum. Then they got good at maneuver warfare themselves, got large numbers of great tanks and conducted some very impressive encirclements of their own. It would have been very interesting to see both armies at their best (Germans 41, Russians 43-44) vying for the Ukraine.

I agree with KDG. The "Jersey Option" for Siberian reserves sounds like another great chance to be in "strategic command." Meanwhile the Germans south of Rostov subsist on horse meat and rotten potatoes...

I'm hoping some of the veteran gamers can help me with this one: On several occasions I (Germans) reach Rostov before Sebastopol has fallen. If Rostov falls, and the Fritzes try to move into the Caucasus before they control all of the Crimea, their supply suffers. Usually, when Sebastopol falls, supply goes back to normal and the advance resumes. In two recent games, though, I've had great difficulty restoring my Rostov HQ to normal supply values (8), even after controlling the Crimea. "HQ Rostov" languishes around 5, and the units are usually out of supply. The manual seems fairly clear about supply, and I think I've got everything right...but obviously the computer disagress. Any suggestions? What are the most common mistakes that let units get out of supply? NOTE: The Germans have hired a new supply sergeant already, and the units are resuming normal rations. Anyone interested in this topic should hop over to the "supply" thread. The answers are over there. [ April 05, 2003, 04:51 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

There were some notable snafus, though, Market Garden and Stalingrad being the most famous. JerseyJohn: Do you have a good feel for the success/failure ratio for this?

Both. Unless SC2 is "just around the corner." But it is really a wonderful game! I would buy SC2 even if there were a patch for SC (assuming SC2 represented another step forward). [ April 03, 2003, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

(This is against AI) Germany: IT and Jets, then long range aircraft for Sealion. I typically invest 1 chit at a time alternating between IT and Jets until both are at '5' investment. When the research level reaches 4 or 5, I cash out and invest in another area. Italy: Same ==== as Allies ==== US: IT, Jets, bombers Britain: same Russia: IT, anti-tank, heavy tanks, jets

I only play against the AI, so I can't offer suggestions about this in particular (although I have been able to coax the AI into attacking the low countries by piddling around in the Balkans and Norway--so the "Dutch gambit" is in the AI somewhere). I can offer the following: It has taken me some time to get proficient at using HQs, expereince and supply to get favorable attack results. If the axis is consistently losing in combat to the French in clear terrain hexes you might double check experience levels and HQ support to make sure you don't have boys fighting men. (And of course have a fresh unit nearby to jump in any hole you create.)

Xwormwood: Thanks for your answer, and I see we do agree about the course of the war...on such a vast and complex subject there will always be many ways to interpret some details, I think. On the political side, though, almost immediately after the US became involved in the war, Churchill and Roosevelt met and came up with the famous "unconditional surrender" statement. This was at a time when Russia's continued survival was still in doubt (Churchill gave them a 50-50 chance). In addition, this statement made opposition to Hitler within Germany very difficult during the war. Don't you think Churchill and Roosevelt realized this? This was a considered move to ensure that there would be no diplomatic room to give in during the reverses that they knew were coming in 42, and to let the Germans know that they were in for a long war. It is interesting to ponder "stalemate" scenarios. But the only way to justify the enormous expenditures of money and lives was to paint the "enemy" as inhuman monsters. It becomes very difficult to "turn off" these kind of wars politically. If the US and/or Britain had been reduced to the level of 1945 Japan, I could see them being open to discussions. But after the revelations of German evil and a public committment to "unconditional surrender," it would have been difficult in the extreme to reverse course. I think a political end to WWII was virtually impossible--it was going to continue until the combatants were physically unable to fight any longer. Russia got battered to a pulp and continued to fight; Germany fought until it couldn't fight any longer; Japan as well. Why would Britain and the US have been different? Both the American and British publics did become "war weary," but everyone knew that the war would continue. This war weariness was also induced, I think, by the feeling of "we know we've won, but how much longer will it take?" If there were really a question of national survival the mood of "blood, toil, sweat and tears" would have been the order of the day, not "home alive in 45." The only kind of war that the Germans could never win was a long war; in the short haul they were unbeatable but there was not the national staying power (population and economically) for a long war. They needed a way to force a decision in 42, and, of course, didn't have it. (Again, game imitates life: In SC, the war is won or lost between the fall of France and June 41--unless there is a mistake or lucky research outcomes. What happens during that time is critical--in real life the Germans couldn't get enough done either economically or diplomatically.)

Xwormwood: Hi. I'm a citizen of a 'former Allied country (US),' who enjoys playing the Axis side more in SC (though I still feel sad about invading New York). So I for one hate to penalize the Axis (But I would be a much kinder Dictator of the World than Hitler, trust me). I think SC gives the axis certain advantages to make the game an fair contest rathen than an "Allies win unless the Axis really screws up" kind of game. Here is how I see that the war would have really looked after a Russian (USSR) defeat in 42-43: 1. The US Navy/airforce coupled with US industrial capacity had the US ready to dominate the Pacific after May, 42 (Midway). In the face of Allied naval/air superiority, Japan could not get food or raw materials to make armaments, nor could it move troops and supplies to defend its Pacific empire. There was NEVER a question of whether the Allies could defeat Japan. It was only a question of when. The Pacific war took a lot of resources and time because of the fierceness of Japanese resistance and the huge scale of the combat area. But in the end victory in modern warfare goes to the strongest economy (provided the country has a stable political will to continue the war--and don't underestimate how much the Americans hated the Japanese after Pearl Harbor); bravery and self-sacrifice are valuable only if the soldiers have the tools they need to fight. The Americans never really beat the Japanese, we buried them with overwhelming material superiority. [Just ask Robert E. Lee how much superior generalship counted in the American Civil War--he was the best in the business and still lost. All of the factories were in the North.] 2. The British navy with a strong assist from the US navy/airforce were winning the "battle of the Atlantic" and were winning the "MPP war" in the skies of Germany.* Supplies and troops could reach Britain, and from there Europe. Although shipping capacity was an unending problem, there was enough to get the job done. *big difference here between 42 & 43! 3. The allies controlled the skies over the English channel (and France, and the Med, and were working on Germany). Coupled with the British navy, this meant that the Germans could not invade Britain, but Britain could (and did) blockade Germany (Europe). So there was no reason that I could see for Britain and the US to ever consider surrender after the fall of Russia, especially with some kind of ongoing Russian resistance movement sabotaging the "MPP potential" of the conquered USSR. Allied air/naval superiority made Overlord successful and could have done so even with more helpless German ground troops to kill. German reinforcements were slaughtered before they ever had a chance to fight the invasion. The German army kicked the American army around pretty well from Africa to the Hurtgen forest to the Ardeness--as long as the US Army Air Force wasn't around. Once the US air (and artillery) got into action, the Germans were faced with overwhelming force. Germany needed some things they just couldn't quite get to be successful: 1. Better fighters (jets) 2. Better submarines (schnorkel boats) They had both on the way, but they ran out of time. Beating Russia wouldn't have given them enough extra time to do it--they didn't have enough industrial capacity. A Russian defeat would have prolonged WWII; and I guess any unusual twist of fate could have been possible. But barring some unforseen event the Allies were in command of the situation, not the Germans. The Allies had an overwhelming economic advantage from December 1941 on. Imagine, Hitler attacked Russia and declaring war on the US in the same year--he was either supremely overconfident or he knew that he was in a desperate situation as early as 1941. I think the latter is true. There are three reasons the game of SC doesn't always follow this historical path: 1. The 'unlimited manpower' issue (discussed at length) that allows unhindered production in addition to armies that occasionally exceed a country's entire male population. [sC's "Lebensborn" program must be fantastically successful!] 2. Out of whack MPP values and plunders, that allow Germany to get a much bigger advantage in 39-41 than she actually got in reality. 3. The ability of the axis to get jet aircraft in 1942. If Germany can control the skies over the English channel Overlord will fail. And the entire German army heads East. (Actually, I like to get MPPs for Italy and have Italian jets whomping the Brits while the Germans do the Russians. The image of Italy as the "great arsenal of Facism" always gives me a chuckle!)

Plus in SC, just dumping in additional units takes HQ "attention" and can leave critical units unsupported at very inconvenient times. Thanks Reepicheep for the great ideas, and thanks Shaka for some nice information.

For newbies like me, the earlier thread is very worthwhile. It raises some valuable topics, and I agree with all of the points mentioned (thanks, JJ). As I get better at the game the supply/HQ issue becomes quite limiting, especially in attempting to use historically consistent methods of attack and defence (trying to play some 'what if' scenarios). A true 'blitzkrieg' is difficult to do in SC unless you have units in pristine condition. Otherwise the HQ's slow down the advance too much, I think. One nice thing about the game to balance the criticism: One of the nice design features of the game is that the scorched earth tactics in Russia really do hinder German supply. The combination of overextended German lines of supply and the Siberian Army can be a real turning point on the Eastern front--a nice combination of game playability & history. PS How does one post links to earlier messages? I've tried the "url" ubb code button, but I can't get to the message. They only have the http://www.battlefront.com/index.htm url.

I agree about the Black Sea. I let that thing run around banging at ground units until it got 4 experience ribbons ONCE (do that once, and you'll never do it again). It became a little engine of death for any unit in a beach hex.

I like ZappSweden's list, particularly the first point. It's very difficult (and unprofitable) to follow the historical approach of the Allies (soft underbelly...). It's better in every respect to land in France. I also disagree about the effect of experience; I think veteran units in WWII were significantly more effective than new ones, though this can probably be argued for some time. The one item NOT on the list that has been touched on in other areas is naval warfare in general; I think some of the problems in the Med. (and possibly with amphibious operations in general) are attributable to a naval system that needs some overall fine tuning.

The discussion of partisans after a Russian surrender (see the "Russian Surrender" thread), got me thinking about SC's handling of partisan warfare in general. Here are some things that I question: 1. During the summertime, any swamp hex without a German ZOC is very likely (75%, I think) to get 'partisan infested.' 2. Partisan units will march themselves into the Russian army and get reinforced to become regular corps (including 'anti-tank' research bonuses, I believe) Here are the historical facts as I know them: 1. Although Stalin and the Soviet government encouraged Partisans from the beginning of the war, there were few resources devoted to developing partisan warfare until after Stalingrad. Therefore the partisan contribution to the war effort in 41-42 was relatively insignificant. 2. Partisan activity was not uniform throughout Russia. Some areas in the Ukraine were actually under partisan control (Germans risked their lives anywhere in these areas), while other areas never had a 'partisan problem' at all. 3. As partisan areas were liberated by the advancing Red Army, the partisans were sometimes incorporated into army units. But they often had trouble adapting to army discipline and routine; and a significant number were too sick (TB mostly) to be fit for service in the army. I think they were most often used by the army for 'partisan' like jobs (recon, mostly). Perhaps SC2 could address some of these issues by making partisan activity variable depending on the season (as it is now), the geographic location, and the year (small in 41 with an increasing probability to Russian surrender/victory). Then the "Russian Surrender" thread should kick in And partisans units shouldn't become Red Army corps, in my opinion.

Hello again (by the way, my name is Mike...I didn't realize I'd be Santabear forever when I picked this handle). Some responses to the above: 1. I think it almost 100% certain that Britain and the US would have continued fighting against Germany after a USSR defeat. Britain fought alone against Germany when Russia was almost a German ally. With the US (and with air superiority), I can't envision Churchill making peace with Hitler--nor could I envision a change in the British government without a major, catastrophic defeat (Sealion). 2. Roosevelt and the US military would probably have WANTED to continue to fight against Germany after the defeat of Britain, but practical considerations might have forced them to make peace. A trans-Atlanic invasion would be nearly impossible, I think. 3. I agree with Edwin P that even if the Soviet government surrendered to Germany, the Russian people would likely have carried on some kind of guerrilla (hope that's spelled correctly) campaign--especially if encouraged by the British and Americans. Though there was no great love for Britain & the US from average Russian citizens (where was the second front?), they truly hated the Germans and likely would have continued to work for their eventual liberation. So: Germany should have to garrison some/most/all Russian cities in order to get an MPP bonus from Russia. And there should be a continued chance for partisans. Thought the 'partisan in every swamp' that happens during the summertime is a bit much in my opinion. I'll start a new thread on this one, though.

I think Russian plunder is too high considering the mess that the war left in that country. As historical fact, occupied Russia was more of a drain on the German economy that a help--though that was due to the stupid occupation policies of the Nazis for the most part. There should be some but it should be in the 100-200 MPP range. Even at éxpert level against AI Russian plunder is usually significantly higher than that.

Thanks for the info. The book I read was in German and by a German historian...though "The German Generals Speak" sounds like a "coming home" present for myself! I'm assuming that book was originally in English and was written by BL Hart, yes? The book I'm thinking of cites comments by the officers, but doesn't quote them at length. I'll see if I can get a title on my next call home. Thanks again for the info!

Have to jump in w/a question for the 2 player vets: My history books tell me that the key to Sealion is air superiority, not the British navy at Scapa. Has anyone been able to fend off Sealion with little air and just the navy? Or vice versa...can Britain be defended with air power while the navy is off killing Italian battleships in the Med?

I really like Edwin P's list to which I would add: 1. Nations with "movable capitals" (Britain, Russia): Capitals can be moved to a city of the player's choice. The game would notify both players of the new capital city. Britain has the option of moving its capital to Canada ("...until the New World steps forward to rescue the Old...") 2. Germany could have a random chance to move its capital to the mythical "Alpine Redoubt" or some other (fixed) location, depending on location of Allied armies when Berlin falls. (Maybe Eisenhower wasn't so crazy after all...) 3. An Allied invasion of Italy could have a random chance to cause a palace coup removing Mussolini and converting Italy to neutral or Allied (before the fall of Rome). [ March 26, 2003, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

I was going to put this in the French Navy thread, then thought it might be better in its own spot. For those who like to amphibiously invade Russia from Sweden as part of Barbarossa: It is possible to crowd the second Russian cruiser out of port by putting enough transports around the port hex. You have to sail the transports over THEN declare war on the USSR. The AI puts one cruiser in the Leningrad port, and the second winds up near Helsinki (where the German cruisers and sub can be waiting: *poof* the Russian Baltic fleet shrinks by 50% before they even know the war has started. Just like it really was! Seriously though, is this a realistic way to place the Russian units? I think that if the Russian navy saw a bunch of German transports about to land troops on the Baltic coast the last thing they would have done would have been to sail to Helsinki. (Orders from Comrade Stalin to avoid provocations at all cost, welcome the Germans, give them dinner, etc. notwithstanding, of course).

The French ships have to be IN the British port hexes (not near them). I don't think French HQ's matter in Britain. But I've never tried the Malta thing...one more wrinkle to try!

I just put a bit of this over in the a-bomb thread, but it's more on topic here: I have read that Hitler was eager to use poison gas toward the end of the war for several reasons: [This comes from a German history of the war I read some years ago; I can't remember the title at the moment. The information came from interviews with surviving military men. They make sense to me] 1. The 'revenge' factor against the Allies (who had gassed him in WWI)--this is directly opposed to the theories above, and I believe it comes from a German staff officer (I'll have to look for that citation). 2. To make it impossible for Germans to surrender in the West (because of fear of retribution). They were scared to surrender in the East because of the terrible treatment of Russian POWs; Hitler chafed at seeing soldiers surrendering en masse to the British and Americans. 3. To slow down the Allied advance in the West and to prolong the war. (sort of a chemical Battle of the Bulge). Interestingly, the discussions of gas in the German command (at least that I've read) always centered on the use of gas against British/American troops. The German military men talked Hitler out of using these weapons largely because: 1. Gas is not good if you're sitting in a hole in the ground or in a city and the other guys are moving around. It's much better used against immovable targets (airfields always seem to be high on the gas target list), and the Germans were much less mobile than the Allies by that time. 2. Late in the war Germany had lost control of their air and their population was compressed into a small geographic area. This made them extremely vulnerable to retaliation attacks against civilian targets. Their greatest fear was of a mass gas attack on the Ruhr which would have dropped armaments production to just about zero. There are also some references to the gas discussion is the Goebbels diaries (I think they're in the "Final Entries" volume). Unfortunately, my books are at home (in the US), and I'm here (in Europe) for some time so I'm operating entirely by memory. I hope some of this is useful, at least for further discussion.

Playing against the AI: I have several times sailed the French Fleet to British ports and had it survive intact. The manual says that units have a 20% chance of remaining, but my luck with the French fleet (even at "expert" level) has been exceptional if that percentage is correct. The worst I've done is to keep a battleship and a cruiser. And I haven't had an HQ involved. I wish I could transfer the same luck to Vegas. I'd retire!

Wow. I haven't checked in for a few days, and have missed a lot. I'm not sure I agree with the notion that 'the US would never have dropped an atomic bomb on Germany.' I agree absolutely that racism was a big part of the war against Japan; old newsreels, magazines, etc. are filled with evidence of this. I also agree that the element of racism was absent against the Italians and Germans (after all they were 'like us'...because 'we' didn't think of blacks, hispanics and other 'non-european' races as being part of 'us' in 1940). Still, I have a very difficult time envisioning Winston Churchill (in particular) going down to defeat at the hands of Hitler and all the evil the Nazi regime represented--and a fair amount of it was known during the war--with the atomic bomb sitting around unused. It is clearly unlikely (almost impossible) that the bomb would have been used in Europe with the Allies winning the war--when it was used in the Pacific there was no doubt about an eventual Allied victory. But in SC the Allies don't always win. And what would have been done with the British government in Manchester (or Canada) and atomic weapons in the US is an open question to me. There was no more certain 'political suicide' for Churchill and Roosevelt than losing a war to Hitler. ============= On gas: Historically I think the Germans considered it when they were losing, but the military men discouraged Hitler from using it. Of course Hitler had been gassed in the first war, so he might have been itching for a chance for revenge, but the hang up the Germans ran into is that gas is a good weapon for attack, not so good for defence--it's particularly bad if you've lost control of the air over your country and everyone is compressed into a small geographical area. It's hard for me to see how SC could incorporate gas usefully. If it requires a large MPP investment, it would likely be a never used (i.e. "gun laying radar") option in the research chart. If it were already available and ready to use it would probably be used more frequently than would be good for the game. In contrast, I see the 'nuclear option' as the opposite in terms of game play: 1. It would require long-term strategic decision making and investment for uncertain but possibly decisive results. 2. It would encourage countries who were losing on the battlefield to hang on hoping for the "miracle weapon" that would win the war (this actually happened). 3. And it could be done, I think, in a way that would not visibly affect WWII-style combat (a la SC) until after 1945-46--when WWII-style combat had historically ceased in Europe. In other words, I think it could be added to the game while preserving (actually enhancing) the historical consistency/"realism"/ability to play "what if" that makes the game so enjoyable. Plus, it has generated a lot of interesting discussion. Thanks again, Edwin P.