Feldtrompeter

Hi Andreas To be just I have to add that what I wrote was not 100% Haffner. I looked the dates up of the Russian counter attack in December 1941 and the German declaration of war against the USA. While doing so in "Der zweite Weltkrieg" (Janusz Piekalkiewicz, 1985, Econ Verlag) I came across the info that the US press had published the secret mobilization plan of Roosevelt in early December 1941 and that that info was directly send to Germany via the German embassy. So I added that. But the main string of argumentation was Haffner. If you like to go to the source get: Sebastian Haffner (1996): Anmerkungen zu Hitler, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. Sebastian Haffner (1989): Von Bismark zu Hitler, Knaur Varlag. The rest of my post was taken from "Anmerkungen zu Hitler". Yet in "Von Bismark zu Hitler" Haffner also states that he did not come across a truely convincing explaination of Hitlers declaration of war on the USA. Neither his own hypothesis nor what he read from others. I think he wrote the "Anmerkungen" first which means that he may have reevaluated the explanatory power of his given conclusion. A view that Haffner definetely holds is that Hitler directed his final destructive intentions against the German nation. In the "Anmerkungen" he lays out that Hitler - with full intention - tried to fulfill his dream of the annihilation of the Jews at the expense of the German nation. In both books he says that Hitlers final goal was to impose as much damage as he can on the German people. Either to punish them for not being able to accomplish his abstruse ideas or to punish them for not agreeing with his general racial intentions. That he had to be carefull with expressing his ultimate views about the Jews Hitler knew from some tests that he had undertaken to try out if the German people as a whole would endorse his antijewish garbage. One of the tests is known as the "Reichs-Kristallnacht". Hitler recognized that the German population as a whole, instead of yielding active support, felt ashamed and stepped back from that aggression. The Nazis definitely viewed the Kristallnacht as being a failure. As a "result" the death camps were also built in the East. Not one of them stood on German soil. Hitler did not trust the Germans too much. So, you can look at Hitler's later decissions and interpret them as serving the purpose to destroy Germany intentionally. They had not done what he wanted them to do neither lended full support, so he makes them reap what they deserve in return. In that picture fits the Ardennen offensive perfectly. Instead of using his last armored "surplus" to protect the fleeing Eastgermans he went and wasted it in a silly strike in the west. (Not to mention that he should have ended the war a long time ago if he meant to act in Germanys interest - save a few hundert thousand citizens from being bombed for instance.) Ok, that was Haffner. So long Feldtrompeter

Best contributions to this thread from my point of view: 1) I agree with Andreas, who stated that the best political move for Germany after the defeat of France would have been to take the British Mediterainian positions: Take Malta, take Alexandria, take the Middle East in 1941 and stay out of any other main war entanglement. His assessment that Germany did not have to fear the UDSSR until 1942 probably not until 1943 rests to my knowledge on sound arguments. A British Empire stripped off of its valuable positions in the Middle East could very well have agreed to a peace settlement with Germany by 1943: Churchill would have had a very hard time keeping up the willingness of the British population to fight when years pass without real combat acitvity. A "Why not make peace?"-attitude, would likely have grown stronger with each new month. Germany would have had two till three years of preparation for a possible German-Russian conflict. And that gain of time would have benefitted Germany more than Russia, IMHO. First because a peace with Britain could have been in reach, second because German scientists could have used the extra time to create a perceptible lead over Russia in important research areas. Germany was no doubt the top country in science at that time. From that viewpoint time ran in Germanys favour. 2) Jason C made the important point that Germany lost because she misevaluated the effort that needed to be undertaken to beat the Russian bear down. A total war economy from Barbarossa on could probably have resulted in a German victory. The inability to adapt to the unexpected situation, that the war would last longer than presumed - for what ever reasons - was Germanys doom. 3) Yet I think that Jason C failed to get the rational behind Hitlers decissions. That's what Krautman contributed when he quoted Sebastian Haffner, a German historian who emigrated to Britain in 1938 and re-emigrated back to Germany in 1954. Haffners explaination of the "stupid" military decissions was like this: Hitler had two goals that he liked to achieve when he came to power in Germany 1) He wanted to rule the world 2) He wanted to eleminate the Jews Haffner basically looks at a simple fact: Germanys thrust into Russia was halted in December 1941 by an unexpectedly forcefull Russian counterattack near Moscow. Five days after the start of the Russian counter attack Hitler declared war on the USA. At that time Hitler knew that Roosevelt tried to arrange a war entrance of his country. He also knew that Roosevelt planned to mobilize 10 million soldiers for a 5 million men invasion to liberate Europe. That was published in some US news papers that came about that information via an indescrete but reliable source. That info was immediately send to Germany via the embassy. Why do you deliberately take on a 10 million men handicap when you just stepped into serious trouble? Overconfidence is Jason C's solution, Hitler simply underestimated the danger he was in. Haffner's answer is different. He says, Hitler switched from goal 1) to 2). The outcome of the war was very uncertain. It is plain arithmatic that you cannot prevail against the three major powers. They outnumber you in men and economic output. Since Roosevelts plan was obvious, Hitler had to expect a war entrance of the US sooner or later that would most probably result in Germanys defeat. Of cause you could gamble and go for total war and try to beat Russia faster down than the US could react. But you can also say good bye to world rulership and plan with your defeat. If you are a patriot or a statesman you try to settle for peace in such a situation. But if you are a criminal you go for inflicting as much destruction as possible within the short time window you have. Hitler was a criminal. He acted like a player in a board game who tries to win but whose primary goal during the game is actually to make sure he can inflict as much damage as possible to a certain fellow player because of personal disgust. When you play the board game Risk i.e. with six people you can always make sure that a person you dislike won't win if you don't care to win yourself. Just use all your turns against that special person. Neither of you will win but you can have the satisfaction to see your enemy loose. From that view Hitlers desissions make sense. Sooner or later he would have to deal with the US - why not have the satisfaction to be the one who decides the time. Plus he had the space he needed to fulfill his seconed goal, the elemination of the Jews. A vast part of the Jewish body lived in the areas that were controlled by the Wehrmacht. All you needed to do was comb through that land and see to it that you get them all. Of cause you loose for sure that way but you might not come to see 2) done if you put all your money on 1). So if you by all means go for 1) you might end up failing to achieve world rulership AND the elimination of the Jews. Why not take the certain route and eliminate as much of the Jews as you can? Haffner's explanaition makes sense to me. Too many people forget to take into consideration the ideological part of the WW2 picture. They mostly think that Nazism was a perhaps not altogether so important tool for Hitler to gain world rulership for Germany. But it is the other way round. Germany was only a tool for Hitler to establish a whole new Weltanschauung, to establish a new world in which not nations but races were the numbers you deal with. From that point of view you don't fail short of the truth if you say that Hitler was a man who had the very personal wish to see a Jewfree world that is ruled by a new super race. The fatefull part of the story is that this mind-sick criminal got the chance to controll a world power that had the potential of being able to achieve his personal dream. Hitler himself did not care one bit about Germany. Practically all of his decissions from spring 1941 on where in every aspect against core German interests. That is also in line with what Andreas pointed out in his earlier posts. Hitler was the biggest curse the German nation has ever had. He used her for his own satanic dream and did not care to destroy her totally if she should fail. A modern German who still admires that criminal or tries to defend Nazism is out of his mind or ignorant - or both. Feldtrompeter

Hi Stendhal You posted: "Would it not be more sensible to ban placing air in cities ?" Yes, sure, you could also agree on that (if you also ban placement on oil fields and mines and in ports for carriers). But there are some disadvantages to that rule: You loose the extra entrechment bonus in cities, which helps a lot in Paris and London i.e. You also wont get max supply 10 for your air. Your carriers wont be allowed to operate from London port (and thus wont get max supply plus defence bonus). You wont be allowed to buy an air unit in a conquerred russian city. And besides: who invested chits into AA before the bug was made known ... at least when it comes to Britain. And Germany and Russia wont need and usually can't afford AA beyond Lv1. So it is better to have more liberty when it comes to placing your air fleets than when it comes to research options. But of cause, if you and your opponent do agree, you can use your rule. FT

Hi folks some corrections on 3. Leave a unit (corps) in either Königsberg or Warschau until fall of 1940. Then have one corps in Königsberg and two more on the hexes directly east of Warschau. If you do that you won't suffer unnecessary Russian readiness penalties. 4. Seamonkey read "baltic" instead of "balkan". The correct answer is: Follow 3. and you won't have to worry about 4. yours FT

jep

And how is it possible to reinforce axis units in France? Right click on a unit and choose to reinforce. If the unit has at least a supply of 6 you can reinforce up to max strength. If the supply is five or lower you'll get a penalty for not having your unit sufficiently supplied and you cannot fully reinforce to max strength. FT

And how is it possible to reinforce axis units in France? Right click on a unit and choose to reinforce. If the unit has at least a supply of 6 you can reinforce up to max strength. If the supply is five or lower you'll get a penalty for not having your unit sufficiently supplied and you cannot fully reinforce to max strength. FT

Hi Wilhelmshaven Sombra has answered Malta already: Attack with an air unit not the Island itself but the port and force the GB air to intercept. Then you may also send the Italian navy to reduce the entrenchment of the Malta defender and finish him off with maybe another airfleet. Why can Germany reinforce her units in France? Cities and HQ serve as a center of supply in SC. A city that has a supply level of 10 can provide all units within a range of four hexes away with maximum supply - if there is a direct connection from city to the unit. So the German city Essen is able to provide max. supply to axis units four hexes deep into France. Now, a HQ is a flexible suply center. If a HQ is not more than nine hexes away from a 10-level city it has a supply level of 10, which means that units within four hexes away from the HQ also get max supply although no 10-level city is nearby. So it is very hard for an experienced axis commander to ever have a unit out of supply in France ... FT [ January 27, 2005, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: Feldtrompeter ]

Hi Wilhelmshaven Sombra has answered Malta already: Attack with an air unit not the Island itself but the port and force the GB air to intercept. Then you may also send the Italian navy to reduce the entrenchment of the Malta defender and finish him off with maybe another airfleet. Why can Germany reinforce her units in France? Cities and HQ serve as a center of supply in SC. A city that has a supply level of 10 can provide all units within a range of four hexes away with maximum supply - if there is a direct connection from city to the unit. So the German city Essen is able to provide max. supply to axis units four hexes deep into France. Now, a HQ is a flexible suply center. If a HQ is not more than nine hexes away from a 10-level city it has a supply level of 10, which means that units within four hexes away from the HQ also get max supply although no 10-level city is nearby. So it is very hard for an experienced axis commander to ever have a unit out of supply in France ... FT [ January 27, 2005, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: Feldtrompeter ]

:cool: Cool post, Comrade Trapp. :cool:

"Does the port give it an air and naval defense bonus in addition to increasing its' readiness?" Yes it does. Ships located in a port get a defense bonus of 2 if attacked by air or naval units. FT

Ok, I did some playtesting on the AA bug ... and I have to alter my statement about UK not being able to exploit the Bug outside of UK territory. UK is indeed able to use the bug in reconquerred French cities (Paris still occuppied) and also in cities that they conquerred on German (and Italian?) ground. (So you did well in not conquerring Paris, Dragon ) But UK is not able to benefit from the bug on liberated terrain of German-DOWed Minors. So Norway, Belgium, Vichy, etc. are not able to aid UK with the bug during Air-Battles. FT

Hi All While you guys out there are back on smack ground I like to come back to a (minor) subject: The last part is not true, AFAIK. UK can only exploit the AA bug from original UK ground but not from conquerred territories. It is very sad to see the old "you-did-me-wrongs" back in the forum. Who cares about 2003. 2005 is at the door and some people don't find better things to talk about than the stories of SC-centuries ago. FT [ November 28, 2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Feldtrompeter ]

Hi Curry Keep those oranges ready. It won't be long and I'll be coming over to Florida and gather them. If Zapp should get unlucky and I do loose, well, I'll see to it that I serenade you in the good old German way next time I visit Florida . yours FT

Wow, finally Rambo got what he asked for. I bet Zapp will win at least one of the games and it will be a game in which he is axis. Übrigens ein feiner Zug von dir, Terif. FT

Hi Sombra "One advice if you are playing against humans the allies without a bid have no chance to win at all." Except Poland won't surrender and the Low Countries Campaign fails, that is ... FT

Since we talk about MPPs in here ... I think it would reflect realtiy better if the resources and cities on the British isle go up to 8 MPPs each instead of only 5 MPPs once Germany has conquerred Britain. I don't like the way it is now in SC about Britain when they surrender. I don't see why the British would not have aided the German cause (via productivity) at least in the same magnitute as the French did. The channel in itself is in my eyes no reason to deny Germany a better income from the British isle. Hope my suggestion finds its way into SC2 . FT

LOL, nicely said.

Hi Against the AI France will fall in January 1940 latest in March. Then you have time to take Norway and Sweden. Meanwhile gain Air superiority in Southern England and go for the Suez channel and Alexandria. Built about 10 Airfleets and destroy the entrenchment of the London defender in the same turn you place two Army/tank transports on the southern Hexes near London port and a transport north of the port. Protect the transport to the north with your 3 naval units and block the channel at Brest with 2 corps. Next turn bomb London, destroy the defender and take the port. Now that you got the port, ship a HQ and additional ground units from Belgium to London. The rest is easy. If you make your seelion prior to December 1940 the Russians will keep quit and you only have to watch the Americans. What increases the allied readiness are units in or directly neigboring London or Manchester. FT

(alter) Hosenscheißer

Götterdämmerung

Hi Angel Dust Great games and a superb final. Congratulations!!!!!!! And as the winner you surely know how to set your words: "I liked the concept of this mirror mode very much, best way to compare two players, no one needs no f___ing bid!" Cool Feldtrompeter

The medal is a visualization of the experience. You can roughly determine the experience of your unit by looking on the medals. For some units it may be wise to reinforce them step by step. Especially if you have a high tech level and a highly experienced unit. You can thereby safe a lot of experience. Experienced Carriers i.e. that get damaged later in the game should only be reinforced at once if you need him badly, IMHO. Otherwise you can safe a lot of experience if you reinforce him over the period of three or four turns.

Hi The difference in your approaches: Norse gives us a roadmap of what to do to make sure we force a surrender of Poland after turn 1 (if our combat results are extremely in our favour ...). Sombra gives us a good tactic of how to take Warschaw on turn one and hoping that the Poles will surrender. My question: Why do you want to take Warschaw on turn 1 in the first place? You have 4 turns to do the job and even 5 if you are lasy. Most of the time you get Poland on turn 2 so why being excited about having them on turn 1? You can ruin your game when trying to take Warschaw on turn 1 and you gain little if nothing if you succeed, IMHO. Feldtrompeter

With GB out of war in 1940: 1) Italy would have made peace as well and thus probably would not have attacked Greece => no Yugoslavian coup and no delay for Barbarossa. 2) Barbarossa could have started earlier and stronger => Leningrad and Moscow would have likely fallen before the winter of 1941. 3) Germany would not have needed to spend tons of energy building up U-Boot fleets => more recorces for ground units and planes + more research concentration on those two areas. 4) International trade would have helped Germany a lot. 5) The German defeat at Stalingrad would probably never have happened. 6) The Russians would have come back into play as they did due to total war economy. => Russia would have gained ground. 7) Germany would likely have switched to total war economy as they historically did => rough balance in economical output. 8) From then on time would have surely been in Germanys favour due to Jet-technology (Me 262), rocket-tech and other technological areas like night combat systems (for tanks especially) and so on. 9) Germany would finaly have gotten total air superiority and then the defeat of Russia would have only been a matter of time despite Russian mass production. 10) The quote so often heard of "Too late too few" would likely turned into "in due time and in sufficient numbers". I can't see the US helping Russia as well. Without GB fighting it is hard to believe they would step into a European conflict. => no lend lease. Main reason why I think Germany would have won is that time would have finally ticked in her favour (in addition to a better starting campaign in 1941). That is due to economical catch up and the steadily increasing tech advantage for the Germans. The western allies would have had problems against Me 262 and without the western front the Germans would probably fielded that plane earlier and in numbers that would have been sufficient to gain air superiority. Other techs would have helped as well. And imaging tungsten rounds for the King Tiger or the gun of the Sturmtiger! (that was planed to be mounted on the Panther II and the KT as well) Imports would have made that possible ... And then the Russians would have been in a pityful place indeed. Moving and positioning as the Germans did at the western front ... by night ... and when clowds darken the skies ... Economical output is a non-factor if you can't use it effectively. And that is what Russian would have faced the longer the war would have lasted, IMHO. But I doubt GB would have stood neutral after Germany would have declared war so soon again - and even if it was Russia. And then it would have come as it did.