Snowstorm

Excellent ideas there, JJ. And yes, I think JJR has a point too. Some diplomatic consequences seem to be appropriate in these circumstances as well.

Bo, A bit off-topic , but yes, the ole' Bethlehem Steel property is big, so big they only build the Sands casino on a tiny fraction of the area it originally had. Personally, I hate casinos, so I'm depressed they want to build table games there now too. Oh well. Glad I live a few miles to the south further away. I'd rather enjoy the Xmas festivities in downtown. That's why they call it the Christmas City.

Bo, It's true the AI ulimately is no match for a human player, but slowly the developers are getting better at simulating a real human player all the time. In the meantime, many games do offer multiplayer options. Perhaps the new Global game will come closer to that ideal.

Hubert, I greatly appreciate your input here, and I'm sure many others do too. Thanks.

Hubert, Seein' as you're present and all, Any possiblity this might become an option in the game or an expansion in the future? Just mighty curious.

For those of you still on the sidelines waiting for an invitation to introduce yourselves and tell us a bit about yourself (vets and newcomers alike), I'm ringin' the invitation bell here one more time.....:cool:

Very well said, JJ. I couldn't agree with you more. And with that in mind, I think I'll give it one more try on the Intro. to Vets thread...

JJ, I believe your argument makes very good rational sense. The Germans in all likelihood would still have lost the war, except perhaps a bit later and the Russians would surely have had the time to overrun all of Germany. My one followup would be, if the Germans had, say, 6-9 months of additional time, would the development of advanced weapons (aircraft and rockets) have been able to make any real difference at that point? And perhaps another what-if, woould Patton and others like him have made a much more strenuous argument to attack the Russians in that eventuality?

Here's another what-if: Operation Overlord. It is well known that in those critical hours before and during the landings, Hitler refused to believe the Allies were going to land at Normandy, at one point believing the landings might be happening up the coastline further in the Calais region. Could the Germans have stopped the invasion if some of its divisions had not been held back or even diverted elsewhere until it was too late? On some beaches (such as Omaha Beach), the landings barely survived or were tenuous at best. Perhaps if these divisions had been sent to Normandy in a more timely manner, perhaps the invasion may not have succeeded after all. Any thoughts?

Ohhh...all right, JerseyJohn, I'll wait until summer. Maybe I CAN use them for insolation in the meantime. Just hang in there, Sea Monkey. I'm sure our Great Sage Brother Rambo will have the answer to the Pacific Campaign real soon. :D

Gee, and I thought WWII was so complicated. I guess I'll throw all 2 dozen of my WWII books out into the garbage. JJR just made it all so simple. Thanks, Rambo! And to think I was learning so much from the earlier posts, silly me.

I think another way to balance things out would be to have a fellow Axis, or even Allied player (if I understand how the more separate behavior of each Axis or Allied player might be in the new game) run the chance of breaking their alliance with the country in question. For an example, let's suppose Germany decides not to plunder the Ukraine. In addition to the results that JerseyJohn proposed, Italy's (or more likely Japan's) diplomatic level changes back to 80 or 90 in favor of Germany, and/or decides to go it alone against other Allies instead of cooperating with Germany, or Japan takes longer to officially join Germany against other Allies later in the game. In this case, there could be serious diplomatic consequences to consider. Of course, this could also cause a more favorable attitude from an Allied country, but the game could be weighted more heavily toward negative diplomatic consequences rather than positive ones for Germany if it took this plunder option.

JerseyJohn, I like the more detailed plunder option you came up with. For the sake of more discussion of this idea for the game and those who did not see your idea, I have reposted it below: "Snowstorm Sorry I took so long to reply to your earlier point about plunder options in Russia. I think the USSR would need to be laid out as numerous nations under the same system. As Germany conquers different areas it should have the plunder option in each of them individually: Belorussia; Ukraine; Crimea; Caucasus etc, and liberated countries such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The better they're treated the more they'll give in return in the form of troops and resources along with the absense of partisan activity. Going for the brutal plunder option would yield a full year's total production from that territory, but would result in total partisan participation and reduced production and troop reinforcement later on. I'd go for three settings: Harsh, Partial, Friendly (no plunder other than military salvage) and Semi-Autonomy, which would give the region its own government and make it an Axis minor ally. -- An option would be to choose an historical setting to simulate the degree of oppression carried out historically, ranging from light in places like Denmark and the Channel Islands, to draconian in places like Poland and the Ukraine with countries like France falling somewhere in the middle." I think this idea could be expanded to other victorious armies in the Axis as well as perhaps the Allies (who were more likely to pick the more Partial, or Friendly option) in other places. Some places may not work as well as others, but that it certainly open for discussion, like right here.

Actually, he said "the New Year is a safer bet". Of course, that is so vague it could mean anytime next year. Let's hope it's MUCH closer to 2009 than 2011. :eek:

XW, Point well taken. However, I think both Arado and I went by the assumption "all things being equal". In other words, assuming most countries had roughly more or less similar and reasonable general levels of technology and development. Clearly if one has a very superior level of technology and development one can overcome the population numbers significantly, at least up to a point.

Arado's point is one I agree with and alluded to earlier: population (and the resources) of the Allied countries were ultimately one of the chief reasons(and in my opinion, THE chief reason) the Axis could not achieve a lasting victory, regardless of military tactics (or lack thereof in some cases). In the game, you have a good idea, JerseyJohn. Suppose this for an event decision for Axis: plunder= MPPs but increasing partisan attacks, or no plunder= no MPPS, but gain of an occasional AXIS partisan or occasional creation ie. regular Axis unit such as Ukrainian Army or Army Corp. Sea Monkey's Medit. strategy sounds interesting but I would like to see what ultimate changes were made to the Medit. portion of Global Map in the new game

I believe Arado is correct. Had the Germans fully realized the opportunity to take advantage of the "liberated" Russians they had freed from Stalinist rule, many aspects of the Russo-German war would have swung in their favor instead of against it. On the other hand, it would have required the type of German leaders who would not have attacked Russia (or many other European countries) in the first place. It is a bit of a paradox, I think. More sane and reasonable individuals would have done it differently, but more sane and reasonable individuals would not have gone to war with most of these countries either. As far as the weather affecting both sides, that may be true, but it appeared to me the Russians were much more able to deal with the winter weather than the Germans. I have yet to see any documentation anywhere (and I've read several dozen books on the Eastern Front) that says otherwise. If there is, I would welcome the proof of this.

Kuni, I would disagree with you, but only to a point. For the most part, everything you said I would agree, but I think the winter weather would have made A difference, but not THE difference in the war. For instance, had the panzers and other weaponry not froze and become inoperable those last few weeks (as well as the frozen German soldier), perhaps the Germans might have made it into Moscow before the Russian counter-offensive had been launched. Would it have made a real difference? Who knows. But certainly they would have gotten farther. Same with Leningrad. If Hitler HAD decided to continue an offensive into the city, perhaps with warmer weather and an unfrozen Lake Lodaga the Germans might very well have made it into Leningrad as well. Would it ultimately made a real difference in the outcome of the war on the Eastern Front? Again, as Sea Monkey had said in general earlier, who knows for sure. Heck, if the Germans had continued on for Moscow in September instead of diverting it's Army Group Center towards finishing off Kiev, perhaps they would have made it the Moscow as well. But that's an entirely different "what-if". Hmmm.....

Wow JerseyJohn, I'm overwhelmed with your start to this thread! :eek::cool: Well, here's my contribution, and after all, my name is Snowstorm, here me roar. The Germans faced what turned out to be one of the worst Russian winters in it's history in 1941-2, and certainly played a major part in stalling, then grinding a halt to the German advance toward Moscow, just when they were as close to 15 miles from the capital in early December. What if the Russian winter had been just "normal", or a relatively mild one? Would the Germans have been able to push into and take Moscow soon enough before the Siberian reinforcements had arrived, especially if they had been better equiped for the winter? Would Leningrad fall under better winter conditions if Lake Lodaga had not frozen over, providing the Russians a means of supply over the frozen lake as they did at the time, and Hitler had ordered the offensive into Leningrad to continue, instead of changing tactics and ordering a siege instead? Of course, one could just turn off the weather option in the game as well as the Russian winter scripts and see what effect it would have in the game, but in real life, would it have made a critical difference? Perhaps Moscow and Leningrad would have fallen, but in the long run perhaps the Russians would have been able to launch bigger and bigger insurgencies from the rebuilt factories in the Ural mountains eventually.

Awww, go ahead JerseyJohn, start the new thread. At least we'll all be able to tell what the new thread looks like. So will the late comers.

Kuni, Kuni. I think you have just been decloaked. :eek::D:cool: A belated Christmas present for the rest of us.

Exactly......but that's as close to an official reply as you're going to get right now, at least it appears it won't be long.

Cantona66 and Scottsmm, Come on in and introduce yourselves to the masses here. Don't be shy, grace us with your amazing stories and background, if you will.

I have two books related to that same theme to add: 1. "In Deadly Combat, A German Soldier's Memoir of the Eastern Front", by Gottlieb Herbert Bidermann, published by University Press of Kansas, 2000. 2. "The German Soldier in World War II", by Dr. S. Hart, Dr. R. Hart, and Dr. M. Hughes, published by MBI Publishing Company, 2000. I found both books to be very interesting and informative, as far as the German infantry issue is concerned. :cool:

Scottsmm, If what you say is true, then unfortunately this is all a dead issue. What a shame. Hopefully, they'll change their minds about it, but I'm not holding my breath. Merry Christmas to you, nonetheless!