dicedtomato

As far as I know, when any country surrenders, all the other countries on that side take a morale hit. So the Red Army loses morale if Tunisia is taken. If the Axis blitz two or three little countries just before Barbarossa, the Red Army takes a morale hit. Naturally, this is an extremely pro-Axis rule because the Germans can conquer lots of small countries at will, while the Allies have a tougher time retaking them. DT

I occasionally open my mind up like you do, Lars. That's when I read science-fiction instead of history. I, at least, know the difference. What I've tried to explain to you again...and again...is that there are reasons why history turns out the way it did. Maybe the Americans did the best they could with carpet bombing given the limitations of 1944 technology. Maybe the Germans did the best they could with their subs. If you want to assume that subs and carpet bombing were much more effective than they were, that's fine. But shouldn't we also assume that the Americans had long-range fighters to escort their bombers in 1942, or that the Allied bombers targteted oil from the beginning? At what point do you diverge so far from history that you're not simulating WWII any better than Risk does? DT

But that's the whole point, Lars. The reason why those other games didn't allow strategic bombers to do battlefield carpet bombing is because it was only done on a couple of occasions. And the reason it wasn't done more often is because carpet bombing was a disaster. When the Americans tried it in Operation Cobra, they bombed their own troops, disrupted their own offensive, and killed a high-ranking U.S. general (McNair) in the process. The ground troops didn't want carpet bombing because they didn't trust the bombers, and the bomber barons didn't want to divert their precious aircraft from strategic attacks. But being wargamers, we want to take an action that happened rarely and with very mixed results, and turn it into a standard game option that you can use every turn. DT

Did I misread Chris G's comments, or did he just say that the Holocaust is a hoax? Now some of you will understand why I'm concerned about a tendency among wargamers to romanticize the Axis. However, most wargamers are not Holocaust deniers. Perhaps someone can inform the moderators that there is a Holocaust denier on the SC2 board? It's up to them what they want o do about it. DT

Blashy, you're a perfect example of what's wrong with wargaming. Gamers read a few memoirs by German generals, see a few documentaries on panzers and Luftwaffe aces, and they believe all the stereotypes. We know the list: The Germans super-soldiers, the SS troops were super-super-soldiers, the Russians were stupid, the Allies only won because of superior numbers, etc. Unfortunately, real iife wasn't that simple. No, the Germans could not have just said "let's have peace" in 1941. How long would a truce between Hitler and Stalin have lasted? After the London Blitz and Pearl Harbor, do you think the Western Allies were in any mood for making a deal with fascism? After two wars with Germany in 20 years, the world was going to settle accounts with the Reich one way or another. No, the Germans could not have taken conquered the Middle East whenever they felt like it. Not with an Italian merchant marine that could barely supply the Afrika Korps, or so few trucks that most German infantry had to walk their way across Russia. Oh, I forgot one more stereotype: "Germany would have won if only Hitler had listened to his generals." If you have an open mind and can read something more than a picture book, try "Inside Hitler's High Commmand." See how the Germans approached such trivial matters as logistics, intelligence and manpower. I'll give you a hint; if Barbarossa was a flawed plan, it wasn't only Hitler's fault. DT

Gas chamber inmates FELL ASLEEP, Blashy? Do you have any clue what you're talking about? The victims were systematically jammed into the chamber until they could no longer breath - and then the Zyklon B was dropped. At least with bombs, the victims would have had the consolation of knowing that their murderers were suffering as well. And, yes, events like the Holocaust are a part of war and of World War II. I know how many of you would like to pretend that the German armed forces were these honorable professionals, and all the bad stuff was done by the nasty SS. Too bad about all the evidence that the German military participated quite willingly in atrocities, and then lied about their involvement after the war. But if you want to dicuss game design, I find it very interesting that most strategic World War II games are unbalanced in favor of Germany. The patches, and the errata for board games, almost always have to help the Allies. DT

Exactly, Rolend. And since Germany was short of raw materials and foreign exchange, building 300 U-boats could only come at the expense of something else. So what's it going to be? No panzers or no Luftwaffe? DT

Help me understand this, guys. You're saying that in SC2, the Axis occupying Vichy Tunisia causes Russian morale to falter. But the Allies landing in France does nothing to help Russian morale until Paris is taken? Or, if the Royal Navy wipes out the Italian Navy, Allied morale is unaffected? DT

The issue here is moral relativism, which basically says that everyone in World War II was equally bad. Sorry, Axis lovers, who sometimes make me embarrassed to be a wargamer. No nation in WWII was pure good, but some were worse than others. I won't even mention the Holocaust. I'll just say that Germany attacked its neighbors without provocation. It attacked neutral powers like the Netherlands and Belgium just because it was convenient. I don't wish harm on civilians, but the Germans reaped what they sowed, and revisionist attempts to minimize that responsbility will always fail. As for the bombing of Dresden, I suggest you read "I Will Bear Witness", the memoirs of Viktor Klemperer, a Jew who barely managed to survive in Dresden because of his Aryan wife. In February 1945, he was to report for deportation (which meant a death camp). He escaped because of the bombing. Also ask the Auschwitz prisoners who prayed for the Allies to bomb the camps. Better to die from a bomb than a gas chamber. DT

Time to teach Lars and Haiku Dave some lessons in data analysis and basic mathematics. First, we'll start with data analysis. Let's look at the evidence they cite at http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN29-WarshiplossesBritish.htm Look at the first table, the one that says the British lost 10 carriers. But the table also lists how many carriers the British had. 65!! In the alternate universe of Lars, the RN had 65 fleet carriers, which means that it was building one HMS Illustrious every month. But those of us who don't selectively read history know that the 65 is mostly escort carriers, which were relatively cheap little that deliberately went out and hunted subs. What a surprise that some were sunk! It's also interesting that according to the table, carriers had the smallest loss percentage of all types of warships. Next, let's do a little math. The RN lost 33 destroyers to subs. But the war lasted almost six years, which means that the RN lost about 6 destroyers a years. How does that translate into SC2 terms? Given that the British have maybe a dozen CV, BB and CA units at most, and that the RN probably maintained 100+ fleet destroyers at any one time, I'll assume that 6 destroyers = 2 strength points. But we'll use wargamer logic, and assume that because the Germans decide to target warships, they'll sink twice as many. So now the British lose 4 strength points a year. Definitely worth overhauling the game system, don't you think? As for Haiku Dave's visions of werewolf U-boats, I wish him a speedy rehab. Lars, report to my classroom after school. Or it's detention for you! DT

Say what, Haiku Dave? You think when Anna in Magnetogorsk wrote to Ivan at his regiment in Minsk, she said, "Don't despair, my darling. The Italians have captured Tunis, but somehow Comrade Stalin will prevail." The average soldier in WWII was lucky if he knew the name of his company commander, let alone what was happening thousands of miles away. There was no cable TV, Internet or cell phones, nor passenger jets for annual home leave. Whtever mail arrived would have been censored. By the way, does it occur to anyone that the shock effect of Axis conquests would have worn off? Conquering Western Europe in three months was the apocalypse. By 1941, invading Vichy would have been business as usual. DT

Can someone please explain why the Axis takeover of a minor French colony demoralizes the Red Army 500 miles away, most of whose soldiers couldn't even find Tunisia on the map? The rule should only apply to conquest of major powers. DT

Much like subs, mines are another wonder weapon that isn't. If you're going to have mines, are you going to have rules for minefield maintenance? Those little devils had a habit of drifting due to weather and tides - especially in open wates - and both sides had to spend a lot of time reseeding them. Offensive minelaying in European waters would be too small at SC2's scale. Mines should be lumped together with light coastal forces (E-boats, Motor Torpedo Boats, etc) as coastal defense assets. Mines were more likely to be seeded around fixed locations such as ports. The game already addresses this by blocking movement into the Baltic and Mediterranean, and by inflicting losses on warships that bombard ports. DT

Didn't mean to upset you, my brother tomato. Haiku Dave seems to feel that the destruction of Dresden was unnecessary, though others believe it was a legitimate military target. In any event, it seems to me that the inhabitants of Warsaw, Rotterdam and Belgrade have even more reason to complain of unnecessary destruction. I'm just curious how he's planning to express his outrage there. DT </font>

[ May 22, 2006, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: dicedtomato ]

Thanks, Lars, for demonstrating the classic mistake of alternate history: The war would have turned out differently if only HE [insert name] had made a different decision. But it turns out that more often than not, HE had good reasons for making his "wrong" decision. It's possible that the Japanese wouldn't have lost four carriers at Midway if the carrier hangars had not been fully enclosed, or if the elevators from the hangar to the deck had been faster. Does that mean that if SC2 were expanded to the Pacific, the game should assume that the Japanese redesigned their carriers in 1935? At a certain point, you have to stop and say, "this is the way things were. And if I do it differently, than I'm not simulating WWII". It's interesting that people want to change German sub doctrine, but no one wants to assume that the French had better infantry in 1940. DT

Nice that you'll place a wreath at Dresden, Dave. Tell us, were you also planning to place a wreath at Auschwitz, Rotterdam, Belgrade, Warsaw, Coventry, Babi Yar, Lidice, Oradour... DT

Just one last comment, and we'll let this thread come to its merciful end. When you're looking at alternate history, you need to ask yourself WHY history turned out the way it did. I just finished "Shattered Sword", the definitive account of the Battle of Midway. Popular history says the Japanese lost the battle because of stupid decisions by the Japanese commander. Yet it turns out that a lot of Nagumo's decisions were necessary because of Japanese equipment and doctrine, which he had no control over. Donitz was not stupid. If he could have swept the Royal Navy from the sea, and left the convoys defenseless, then it's hard to believe that he wouldn't have done so. The fact that he didn't is a clue that he didn't have the capability. Maybe the technology, the geography and the raw materials weren't there. DT

When has this happened historically, Blashy? If I understand the logic here, the conquest of Denmark - a tiny country on Germany's border - is supposed to depress the Red Army 500 miles away? Since the game is supposed to model morale, can Blashy or someone explain to me how it reflects the "our backs to the wall" desperation that creates a burst of higher morale, such as Britain after the Fall of France? DT

Folks, I accept that SC2 is an abstract game that makes compromises in the name of playability. But if realism doesn't matter, we'd be playing Risk or some stupid RTS clickfest. I like to feel that the game I'm playing bears a resemblance to the conflict it's supposed to simulate. I like to feel that I'm learning about why history turned out the way it did. The sub war in SC2 doesn't feel historical. I don't get the feeling of overwhelming U.S. industrial might. I don't get the feeling that Germany faces real dilemmas in where to attack, other than just conquering everything. If I want Germany to take over the map, I'll play Hearts of Iron. DT

The statistics aren't irrelevant. But they aren't useful, either. So 189 warships were sunk - out of how many attempts? 500? 5,000? 50,000? Even a cursory reading of WWII sub warfare will tell you that a sub skipper who sank a capital ship became a front-page hero. Nothing heroic in SC2; there are lots of ocean squares to maneuver in, and few CA counters to screen CVs. The sub attacks the carrier, the carrier gets blasted, the sub is unharmed. That's not the way it worked, whatever the fantasies of Donitz. The problem with SC2 is that the subs are identical to surface ships. They can't bombard, and they can occasionally evade attacks, but otherwise they behave the same and they're used the same way. DT

Imagine (with apologies to John Lennon) Imagine all the U-boats sweeping the Royal Navy from the sea Subs with nuclear engines and torpedoes and anti-grav technology Imagine the Germans use the Z-Plan no steel left for plane or tank Alchemy makes all the metals for magic ships that never sank Imagine all the U-boats ruling the world today.... DT

Seven UK carriers sunk by subs?? You have to be counting escort carriers, which were about one-quarter the size of fleet carriers. The RN and the USN built more than 100 CVEs (Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable), to hunt U-boats and escort convoys. Losing a few was not unexpected. DT

Right, Lars. That's what there were no battleships or aircraft carriers afloat in 1945. They were all sunk by subs. In fact, the Allies didn't need surface ships to invade Normandy. They used giant subs. By the way, wasn't Jackie Fisher the genius who made the RN buy those inflammable battlecruisers at Jutland? DT

I had the same reaction, Yogi. I had nowhere those tech levels or units, though the U.S. did enter the war late (mid-'42). And I invested very heavily in IT. Maybe Sombra invested in Intel first? DT