Fall Gelb; A study of the engine out of a historical context

[AshesFall]

Me and my regular opponent will have played three games of SoE to the point where victory for one side was virtually ensured. I have a number of reflections and thoughts based on these games, and will be posting them. The first of these concerns the invasion of France in 1940. Will invaded in november, and I have tried invasions on the historical date twice. Despite the first "historical invasion" made in my first game as the axis being wildly successful (see the AAR SoE "return of the newbies") the early attack made by Will, and again in our third AAR on the historical date, France has never once surrendered earlier than late august/september and has always moved their capital rather than surrendering at the fall of Paris.

As a baseline, I'll outline my own preferences. I believe that a benchmark of an historical wargame is that if events and actions in the game that follow actual historical events as closely as possible within the confines of the engine occur, then the historical results should follow at least most of the time. In a previous discussion with StrategicLayabout he pointed out that any reasonably competent allied player would do much better than history with france and I agree that given a good defense from a smart player, it should hold longer.

To this effect though, something still felt off about France always surrendering so "late" from a historical viewpoint, and I decided to test the theory through a number of hotseat attempts at modelling what happened in history. I've also tried to set up conditions somewhat like in the game, for example there is no way the allied player would not spend all their MPP's with france building units (hence the AT units). Here is a walk through of one of them.

Order of Battle - Allies

A note, all orders of battle taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_for_the_Battle_of_France (and the related page for the B.E.F linked to on this page)

The first army group, containing the 1st, 2nd, 7th and 9th armies stand by the northeastern border of France, ready to advance ito Belgium and meet the germans. I had a little trouble modelling this correctly, as the allies had about a 1.5 to 1 advantage in armor, and an advantage of around 300 000 ínfantry at the start of Fall Gelb. Consequently, I built an armor unit for the British and the French. Though this still does not match the five groups fielded by the germans (more on them later) this could be abstracted as two of those five groups being just one or two divisions, and these two armor units representing the "effective arm" of the combined allied defense, with the rest of the armor spread ineffectively among the infantry. One more armor unit will arrive for the French, bringing the number to three and matching the main body of german armor (which is also three groups). It was impossible to build the armor unit with the hvy armor upgrade and still get it on time to the operation, and it has just been placed now prior to the operation.

Working closely with General Bilotte and nominally under his command is the british B.E.F. The armor unit represents part of the combined allied armor forces, and the large mechanized elements of the British army. Another problem sprang up here, as the actual B.E.F army (represented on the map) was in fact comprised of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd corps. The 1st and 2nd corps arrive on the map though. I assumed that this represents mobile and reactive elements of the B.E.F proper that could move and react independently from and under the direction of the army and Lord Gort. I did not include a third corps, as at least one corps must remain "in the army" to make it an actual army formation. The B.E.F remains an "army" despite the detachment of at least parts of two corps because of the concentration of support formations there.

The "token border defence" represents forces stationed along the borders and the rivers to prevent breakthroughs. as the Ardennes is "impassable" this is not a high priority sector, with the weight of the defense concentrated in the middle and southern parts of the Maginot Line and the Second and third army groups (comprising of four armies, 3rd, fourth, 5th and 8th).

Order of Battle - Axis

Army group A, under General Rundstedt and Kluge, is comprised of the main part of the German armored forces organized into three armor groups (XIV, XIX and XXXXI corps). These are upgraded fully, as they represent "full" armored corps. Also in army group A, 4th, 12th and 16th army. All upgraded as the main part of the thrust.

Army group B, under Von Bock and his subordinate in the german 8th army Kuchler, has two armor corps on the map. In reality, these are comprised of a single armor division (bound for Netherlands) and two armor divisions (slated for belgium). This is represented here by a lack of upgrades. Also included are the Sixth and 18th armies, as well as a formation representing the various engineers and special forces operating with the army group to take fortresses and breach rivers, and the paratroopers who land on Eben Emael and in Rotterdam.

Army Group C, a very weak army group intended to apply pressure on the Maginot line and pin it in place, is gathered in the south Under Von Leeb.

The OKH reserve is represented with many corps, as well as the men manning the Siegfried line.

Fall Gelb

Note that parallel to this operation, on this turn (may 3rd) norway is also invaded and conquered in addition to Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg

On the Ninth of May the operation starts. Army group B quickly defeats both the Netherlands and Belgium, taking the allies completely by surprise with the speed of their attack. Paratroopers land in Rotterdam (because they did in history ^^) and Eben Emael falls. Army group B occupies Luxemburg, but keeps the strength of their army in the back until the allies fall into the trap in Belgium. Army Group C moves to the Maginot Line, supported by artillery, and applies pressure to pin the 2nd and 3rd french army groups in place.

(I debated the sequence of events here for some time. Given the time scale modelled in the game, the armored strike through the Ardennes would have to fall immediately on the invasion turn to stay remotely true to the "time table". However, in the end I decided that the "flow of events" was more important, the Germans would never strike before the allies had moved into Belgium, and moving them up right away just stretches suspension of disbelief a little too much in regards to the follow up actions by the allied player. I did try this later variant as well, with the result that france fell a turn earlier)

The Allies, believing that the Main thrust of the German army is coming through belgium and secure on their right flank in the ardennes, advance into Belgium and battle the advance guard of the germans, taking heavy losses as the Germans advance. The "token defense" near the border of luxemburg is stripped of important assets.

The germans punch through the Ardennes and obliterate the defense, starting to encircle the allies to the north. Army group B, originally meant as nothing but bait, enjoys unexpected and stunning successes against the french army in the Field. The allies are reeling.

[AshesFall]

The allies stumble backwards, trying to escape encirclement. Meanwhile Huntzinger commands an armor group just assembled outside of paris (3e division cuirasse de reserve) to counterattack the german spearhead, and a fierce three day battle ensues with the german 10th armor group. The British, fearing the total destruction of the B.E.F start withdrawing to the coast.

The Germans close the pocket, and destroy most of the french army in the field. Forces have begun encircling the Maginot line, and Army group C is hammering the defenders.

The French start retreating from the Maginot Line in confusion after reports of germans to their rear, the northern pocket tries to disentagle, but are trapped. Lord gort and what little of the british heavy equipment remains start evacuating.

"Fall Rot" is executed, the southern thrust from the northern encirclement line takes paris. The French army is more or less a non entity. However, the french do not surrender, and moves their capital to Bordeaux. The british, trapped at Dunkerque fear destruction from the surrounding german forces, but escape by fishing skiffs due to axis indecision.

The French army continues a mass retreat towards central france and Bordeaux. Not shown on the pictures are the italians that attacked a couple of turns ago and have been stuck fighting a French army. Their land gains are negligible.

The germans destroy the few remains of the french army, and france surrenders on the 26th of July. I did not include this last screenshot as it would mean another post ^^

Thoughts and impressions

I tried this a couple of times, and the results were always the same (I tried the "attack the gap immediately in May and then move the allies into belgium anyway" twice, once the french surrendered on july 10th after paris falling July 5th, and once they held on to the 26th anyway. However, that variant necessitates largely ignoring the northern pocket and going straight for Paris, and also ignores the "flow of events" to an extent I am not really comfortable with.

Sequence of events;

Axis turn 1 (may 3rd, historical); Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Norway falls.

Axis Turn 2; Allied force hit hard, encirclement and/or breakthrough begun.

Axis turn 3; French forces 40% destroyed in total, encirclement and/or breakthrough complete

Axis turn 4; Paris falls, Allied forces 60% destroyed, Brits mostly fled.

This, I think, is as close as you can get both in the OOB's and the events within the engine and still be somewhat reasonable gameplay wise.

Given this rough timeline and sequence (and with this I mean that even if the allies do not advance into belgium, the german player manages to destroy a lot of their army elsewhere and break through to take paris, forcing the evacuation of the B.E.F), no matter what the other circumstances are, it is not inappropriate that Paris falls and the French surrender on July 19th (turn 4) almost every time. The french should basically only hang on further if their army is more intact than say around 50% left and the British make a further commitment to stay in france with 4-5 units. This is, despite very large success from the axis, still a month later than in history but within more acceptable parameters. The result of four of my 5 games with a surrender the 26th of july is way too late given these "four step circumstances". ideally, if the french army has taken a beating, the british not present in force (two units) and paris falls on turn 3 of the invasion, they should still surrender. But turn 4 seems to be a reasonable compromise between gameplay and history.

The Axis army has taken a crazy beating to achieve this "fast" four turn conquest of Paris. This despite me consciously choosing to "retreat without striking" in several instances with the allies. Historically, losses were about a third of the armored forces and 3% of the regular army. Most of the armored losses were the old Panzer II's, that were slated for scrapping anyway. Losses most of the time in the game is closer to 50-60% of the armored forces, and 15-25% of the regular army. This in part suggests that axis armor tech should probably be around lvl 2 for this invasion (the model for the lvl 2 tech is the panzer III, the main battle tank of the french campaign) but through lots of testing I have concluded that barring insane luck it is completely impossible to attain lvl 2 armor and upgrade it while maintaining an even close to historical OOB for the germans in time for the campaign.

Edit; The current historical OOB for the germans presented here necessitated a two turn conquest of Poland, the "marching" of all units to the west (no operating) and fairly little research.

Suggestions

Several things spring to mind regarding this particular part of the war, and the war in general.

One possibility is an adjustment of French national morale, giving the loss of forces and fall of paris, as well as the continued blitzkrieg more of an effect.

Another is the adjustment of the Blitzkrieg NM events, forcing an active defense of these locations to prevent their fall and a guaranteed surrender if paris falls and the army is mostly destroyed.

My ideal model would probably look something like this;

An adjustment of french NM, the loss due to "blitzkrieg" events surrounding the capture of Lille/Maubeuge/sedan (group 1) and/or Metz/Verdun/Arras (group 2) and the approach to and capture of Paris adjusted so that in the end result the following is true;

The French fight on at the end of any turn, either allied or axis if at least two of the following conditions are true;

1. The allies have successfully defended either group 1 or group 2 above (I'm not sure whether it is best to have this meaning that any of the cities in the group must still be held, or all of them. I think the latter would be very hard for the french, but perhaps not unreasonable. A matter of discussion?)

2. The French army is at more than 50% original strength

3. The British are present in force (4+ units) on the french mainland

4. Paris has not fallen

This gives several alternatives for when the french can fight on and how to set up the defense of france, and also several ways to "break" them. With the above conditions, a "four turn conquest" should not be impossible. The numbers above are of course up for balancing and discussion.

Two other things I have been thinking about is regarding french and german armor units.

Perhaps france should start with two armor units (low str) and have the option of building one more. However, these armor units should be -really, really bad-. Probably even worse than now, and the french should not start with heavy armor 1. The french can still have the 3e division cuirasse de reserve arrive near paris under Huntzinger, but it should likely be str 5 or so (representing a single division).

This would model both the allied actual numerical superiority in armor in the field (the british and french had a total of 3900 armored units and the germans only had 2700) but also their actual lacking ability to project that superiority as strength in the field.

German armored units consistently took much lower losses than their counterparts throughout the war. Party this was due to experience and tactical knowledge, but the simple fact of the matter is that most german armor models were -better- than their allied counterparts. I'm thinking, for example, of the evolution of the Panzer III in 1940/41, the Panzer IV in 42/43, the panther in 44 and so on. This isnt quite represented through tech, as it seems the allies will be able to match the axis tech level most of the time. Perhaps german armor should have one higher defense value than the allied armor units? Not better in attack, but taking slightly less losses in general. This is a slightly unrelated thought though, and might be completely off base.

[Strategiclayabout]

Hi,

- I respectfully disagree on the heavy tank level 1 for France : the B1bis tank had many defaults but it was very hard to destroy, many losses were due to breakdowns, lack of ammo or fuel and inability to repair them. The battle of Stonne showed what they were able to do if used with some brains ^^ .

- I see french NM was at 51 when you took Paris, so you were very close to get a surrender with the fall of the city.

- Some other possibilities to think about:

1) add french NM loss (maybe 5 points) with the fall of Brussels

2) add 0,5 french NM loss per town captured, 1 per bigger objective (cities, mines...)

3) have an event where french player can decide to have Paris as an "open city" when german units come close (historical 13 juin 1940)

It will enable the capital transfer to Bordeaux (historical 14 juin 1940) and Paris will become german controlled with 0 supply/no french unit at the end of french turn

[AshesFall]

Hi,

- I respectfully disagree on the heavy tank level 1 for France : the B1bis tank had many defaults but it was very hard to destroy, many losses were due to breakdowns, lack of ammo or fuel and inability to repair them. The battle of Stonne showed what they were able to do if used with some brains ^^ .

- I see french NM was at 51 when you took Paris, so you were very close to get a surrender with the fall of the city.

- Some other possibilities to think about:

1) add french NM loss (maybe 5 points) with the fall of Brussels

2) add 0,5 french NM loss per town captured, 1 per bigger objective (cities, mines...)

3) have an event where french player can decide to have Paris as an "open city" when german units come close (historical 13 juin 1940)

It will enable the capital transfer to Bordeaux (historical 14 juin 1940) and Paris will become german controlled with 0 supply/no french unit at the end of french turn

Yeah, I agree about the quality of the french hardware. I was looking at it out of the context of SC, which seems to model "force projection" of different types of formations rather than actual statistics. French "force projection" with all of their tanks was horribly bad, with the sole exception of the Stonne battle. I'm a really big fan of having to make hard choices, which is why I advocate a model for france that gives you several options on how to defend it, but still allows a 4 turn conquest if the germans do very well.

How about this, as an historical compromise regarding the tanks; The french start with two tank groups at str 5 or so (an issue of balance how high the strength is, will probably have to be tweaked around) and their basic stats are just horribly bad (probably worse than they are now). This gives the french player a choice; Do I spend my MPP before the invasion on strengthening the tanks and upgrading hvy tanks 1? That would make them still mediocre, but somewhat more effective. Perhaps they even have the option of building a third group. The one that arrives in june around paris would still be upgraded, and perhaps str 8 or so, ready for the "counter attack" at stonne.

[Strategiclayabout]

- If you look at the stats, the "force projection" factor, i think it's already there with french tanks only having 4 base AP against panzer 6 and no motorization. The unit already in the production queue arrives in may 40 meaning you won't have much time to use it .

- It's true base attack stats for french tanks are buffed up with 5-6 (soft/tank) instead of 4-5. Then you can combine it the way you want:

* go for 4-5 attack from 5-6 while keeping heavy tanks level 1

* keep the 5-6 attack stat but woth no heavy tanks level 1

- The other possibility to fit your bill without tweaking stats would be to just give full strength light tank units to France (3-4 attack 4-5 defense). But light tanks not being able to upgrade, having heavy tanks level 1 tech would have no interest.

- One thing to keep in mind though is that you arn't supposed to take those B1bis head on, you have to cut them off and avoid frontal combat. Hitler was worried all along about allied tanks counter-attacks on his advanced/flanking units.

- I talked about Stonne before, you also had the Abbeville battle later where french tanks qualities were of little use when engaged on a larger scale in poor conditions. They didn't do better than english tanks. They had tactical punch but not enough force to achieve any strategic goal.

- I suppose our gaming philosophy vary a bit too, a game should offer a chance to attain historical results but not often, I'm more of a "what if" guy ^^ .

[AshesFall]

- If you look at the stats, the "force projection" factor, i think it's already there with french tanks only having 4 base AP against panzer 6 and no motorization. The unit already in the production queue arrives in may 40 meaning you won't have much time to use it .

- It's true base attack stats for french tanks are buffed up with 5-6 (soft/tank) instead of 4-5. Then you can combine it the way you want:

* go for 4-5 attack from 5-6 while keeping heavy tanks level 1

* keep the 5-6 attack stat but woth no heavy tanks level 1

- The other possibility to fit your bill without tweaking stats would be to just give full strength light tank units to France (3-4 attack 4-5 defense). But light tanks not being able to upgrade, having heavy tanks level 1 tech would have no interest.

- One thing to keep in mind though is that you arn't supposed to take those B1bis head on, you have to cut them off and avoid frontal combat. Hitler was worried all along about allied tanks counter-attacks on his advanced/flanking units.

- I talked about Stonne before, you also had the Abbeville battle later where french tanks qualities were of little use when engaged on a larger scale in poor conditions. They didn't do better than english tanks. They had tactical punch but not enough force to achieve any strategic goal.

- I suppose our gaming philosophy vary a bit too, a game should offer a chance to attain historical results but not often, I'm more of a "what if" guy ^^ .

Of course I agree completely with the "what if" philosophy, though I think that the scenario should (if the players want to do it that way and things in the game should happen to play out just like in history) be capable of modeling those historical circumstances very closely. I like the idea of the unupgradeable light tanks. That could be the two "starting" tanks, with the option to build one that can be upgraded, and of course getting the one deployed in May for that counter attack against the german invaders!

This increase in capability of the french would have to be offset by something else, likely the other stuff we're discussing about french surrender and NM.

[Bill101]

Interesting posts and we are currently testing out something to hopefully better reflect France 1940 and make it feel more historical.

Once that has been released it will be interesting to see and compare the effect with your own tests here. This has been an issue for a while and I hope that we might be moving towards a solution!

[Aikei]

Why do you think France must inevitably lose?

Historical deployment shouldn't predefine historical results of this deployment.

I think France should've fared better than it did in real life. French army was at least as strong as that of Germany, and French also had allies like Belgium and the UK.

France's equipment was actually better. They had some problems with bad organization of armored units, but still, Frace should've put up a better fight than they did historically.

I think a competent player should actually be able to win given historical conditions.

I find it very disappoiting that people think that France was very weak and should've lost anyway.

I think the defeat was mostly caused by bad leadership, something which you, as the supreme commander, should substitute for.

It seems that axis have some numerical superiority here too, but actually it seems, numbers were almost equal. And only 50% of all German divisions were ready to fight by that time, it should be represented by strength 5 of some divisions. Many were poorly equiped and consisted of men over 40. How is that represented here? There was only a small number of strong divisions, most were weaker and worse equipeed that those of France.

In short: I think you made Germany too strong compared to France, and France shouldn't have lost (at least so soon) given good leadership.

[xwormwood]

From my point of view the game would have to start in 1919 if it should follow your thought.

With decision to build the Maginot Line or not, to occupy German Rhineland or not, to build and train better armed forces, to develop a fighting morale (instead of appeasment) etc.

In game which starts with the German attack on Poland there are many thing already set in motion.

And than the problem with the "Operation Sichelschnitt", Mannsteins plan to attack through the Ardennes, to cut of the allied forces in Belgium.

This was a decisive manoveur. Without it, the war might have taken longer.

But now where we all know about the Manstein Plan, how can this be brought into a game? The designer has to think of ways to allow the game to take its historical course, more or less. You can stop the germans in France, or at least stall them, if you want to. But it comes with a high price.

I agree that it feels unfair to suffer for mistake you never did (if you play the Allies).

That is why I would let the game start a bit sooner, and why I would fire a dozen of decision events in the months before the outbreak of the european war. Through the decision events i would let the player chose to make the mistakes the Allies once did. Offering only decision between the plague or cholera.

In SC Global Conflict there are these kind of decisions: the allied player gets to decide if he sends Anzac reinforcements to Egypt (where he really needs them) or the Pacific Theater of operations (where they would be very helpful to prepare the upcoming Japanese attacks.

Or the Allied player can reinforce (and activate) Singapoore, or spend the money to defend the British Isles (where the danger is iminent).

Both decisions are more or less no brainers. You need the Anzacs in Egypt, and you need cash to survive or prevent an Operation Sealion (german invasion of the UK). The beauty is this: when Japan attacks in the Pacific and the Allies get hammered, the player can accept this, because it was HIS VERY OWN DECISION which took the money and units elsewhere.

He don't feel handled unfair, after all he had a chance to decide different.

That is something i would do (if i could design campaigns, and if i had the time and peace to learn the editor) with France as well.

I would make the player responsible for the lower unit morale of the French, for the Maginot line, for the tank forces etc.

And when the germans would attack, and conduct a successful Operation Sichelschnitt, than my Allied player would know exactly why this did happen. Because of his decision, where the choice was either the plague (historical set up), or cholera (a not historical set up, but with grave consequences to pay for it).

[bob.]

Well, fact is that no player would make the same mistakes as the French again... so for a game there is only two possibilities:

- force the player to do the same as happened in reality in the beginning of the campaign (for example the game Decisive Campaigns did this, there you are forced to deploy by the Dyle plan)

- make the French weaker than they were, this is how SC did it.

No solution is ideal, but I think there's not much else that can be done... if France can stall Germany, then there is no way Germany will ever win the war.

[Aikei]

I understand your logic guys, and this is possibly one way of making it in the game, yes.

However, I think historical RESULT shouldn't be the goal of the game, or it won't be a game at all. Since Germany would have to lose every game, allies would land in normandy each game etc.

Yeah, no player would do this mistake. That's a big challenge for Germany to try to achieve historical result, not for France to try and make together with Germany some historical dance in order to lose.

If you really want to play with this historical result, you can always start another scenario, in another year, say 1941, no need to make the player to repeat something which could very likely have gone a different road.

However, when I start in 1939 as France (allies) I probably want to experience this early fight as France in a completely different way, and, well, I can't, 'cause France was artificially made too weak, and some people say it should be even weaker to surrender in 4 turns.

[AshesFall]

Given the last two responses, I feel I might need to clarify the goal here.

Goal 1; -Allow- the basic historical conditions to be modelled as closely as possible, with "conditions" I mean number of troops, strength, disparity in doctrines (tech and stats). -Allow- in this instance means that among other choices, one can make a -choice- to build a lot of troops and tanks (in this instance despite them being fairly bad) and achieve a historical setup. Of course, other choices will lead to other situations, but the -possibility- of modelling the historical situation should be there.

Conversely, it would be bad if a historical wargame allowed no way whatsoever to model the historical situation even if the player actively tried to do so.

Goal 2; Set up a situation with several choices to make, preferably hard choices. Choices like "what do I prioritize? Do I try to defend both groups of key cities close to the border by building a lot of troops and tanks, then try to fall back without loosing too much? Do I defend one group of cities very strongly, and try to hold paris with the help of a lot of brits?

Conversely, a wargame that allows more or less only one clear "way" to go about things, or where you can really do everything and not have to make choices at all, in a particular campaign would be bad. For example "just build every anti tank unit and inf unit possible, set up along a river slightly forward of Paris, then fall back and hold paris" would be bad (not saying this is definetly the case here, there are choices to make, but making them harder, and giving more choices would be good).

Goal 3; If the germans do very well, no matter how they go about it in meeting the defense and strategy chosen by the french, a conquest should at least be possible in four turns. The "four turns" isnt something mandated by the game or the engine (as some of you seem to have believed), it's a goal to strive for and something a very successful german attack could achieve. A brilliant defense, bad luck or bad play or strategy by the germans would of course prolong this. This is also where the choices come in, if the germans fail to meet the strategy chosen by the french (whatever that is, historical or not) it will of course also be impossible to win quickly.

Conversely, it would be bad if it was -never- even remotely possible to achieve a great victory comparative to the historical outcome, no matter how well you do. This is more or less the case currently.

Any modifications and changes that would help in attaining these three goals would be good. I would personally love to see three french light tank groups at low strength for example, balanced out in other ways to make sure that all of the "goals" above are met. More choices is a good thing!

[Duke of York]

Yeah, no player would do this mistake.

Be careful with such statements. Never forget: we play a historical simulation and today we all know, that the Ardennes are passable by large Tank groups and this is the reason, why today nobody would make this historical mistake.

Going one step further ... todays knowing that the war wasn't winnable by the Axis would lead to the consequence, not to go to the war:

We wouldn't play such historical simulation games.

[Bill101]

Interesting discussion and there's a lot to agree with here!

What we're trying to achieve is to make it much more possible for the historical result to occur in 1940, but without necessarily making it be the case that it will always happen that way.

Yes, it will certainly make it more of a challenge than it currently is for the Allied player, and I look forward to hearing your feedback on this after we have released the patch.

[xwormwood]

I understand your logic guys, and this is possibly one way of making it in the game, yes.

However, I think historical RESULT shouldn't be the goal of the game, or it won't be a game at all. Since Germany would have to lose every game, allies would land in normandy each game etc.

Yeah, no player would do this mistake. That's a big challenge for Germany to try to achieve historical result, not for France to try and make together with Germany some historical dance in order to lose.

If you really want to play with this historical result, you can always start another scenario, in another year, say 1941, no need to make the player to repeat something which could very likely have gone a different road.

However, when I start in 1939 as France (allies) I probably want to experience this early fight as France in a completely different way, and, well, I can't, 'cause France was artificially made too weak, and some people say it should be even weaker to surrender in 4 turns.

I completly agree with your point that the game is about to change history, not to replay it 1:1.

But on the other hand we can't ignore historical facts. Even IF i would had become the ultimate power to command all Allied Forces in 1939, i would have to face the public opinion of the press, the parliaments, the generall staff, the soldiers, the citizens.

I would still have to change all military and political doctrines, i still would have to replace ignorant leaders (both civilian and military). This all takes time. The game starts with the outbreak of the war. There is no way to change everything within a few month, you would have to make everywhere compromises, you would have to wait for reforms, rebuilds, retraining programms.

What you suggest is a complete brain wash of all the people and soldiers of your alliance once you have become ultimate ruler. That is a scenario which is no fun at all to play.

That is what i ment to let the game start a decade sooner.

Look at Nazi Germany. It took the Germans from 1933 - 1939 to build up the Wehrmacht, and even after the Fall of Poland Germany wouldn't have survived an Allied attack in the West, with all the German ammo used up in Poland.

That is why i suggested to introduce decision events, offering the player to start a complete change. For a prize. This would have been a very dangerous thing to do in 1939 (at least for the Allies). The Germans could have hit them sitting duck during the process.