SC2: Post WWII East vs West Option

[Edwin P.]

It would be interesting, if at the end of WWII the system had the option for Russia to DOW the Allies.

Thus setting up the stage for a what if with the USSR taking on the UK, US, and France after the fall of the Axis.

Would it be balanced? I think so. Would the Russian AI always select this option, no.

The Allies would probably control the UK, US, France, Low Countries, Italy, Norway, Greece, Spain, Portugal, North Africa and Western Germany. The combined production of these nations would roughly equal the production of the USSR with eastern Germany, and the Minor Axis countries.

Turkey would probably remain neutral or join the Allies depending on the Actions of the USSR. If Fascist Spain and Portugual is neutral they may join the Allies or not.

Supplying units during such a war would be extremely difficult as the Post WWII Cities of Berlin, and Warsaw should be limited to a maximum rating of 4 - due to the heavy destruction which those cities faced in the final months of WWII. This would also prevent the USSR and the Allies from building new units in these cities.

In fact for play balance the system could make minor adjustments to each side. If the Allies are substantially weaker than Russia then Spain and Portugal would have a greater chance to join the Allies. If the Allies are too strong then Sweden might return to Neutrality. Etc.

[ January 31, 2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

See Hubert, this is what you get for commenting beyond a " !"

--

As always, Edwin, an excellent idea.

Do you think we'll get the usual smiley, or a different one? There are about six I've never seen him resort to.

[ January 31, 2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Probably just the usual, but if its a definite no-no then probably :mad: or to show that it is outside the scope of his project or to show been there, done that, its in SC2 :cool: .

[ January 31, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

I tend to think it's a Yes-Yes !!!

It would certainly be relevant to the 1945 situation when there actually was an outside chance of things coming apart as Germany crumbled.

In the early post-war Europe there could have been a WW II type war. I think 1948-1950 would have been the most likely flashpoint.

The A-bomb would still have been an American monopoly and not for use by the U. S. against Europeans (sorry, I know that is not "Politically Correct," but it's true to the mindset of the times).

The farther we move from 1945, the less emphasis there would be on large ground formations, but till the late sixties the Soviets placed huge numbers of tanks in Eastern Europe. Air, of course, would have been the key from the start and of rising importance in the following years.

Anyway, I think this sort of game system would handle such an eventuality very well up to about 1950 and the Korean War era.

Weapons in use in Europe up till 1950 would equate as L= 3-4-5 in SC game terms. Even where advances would be at L=5, the troops in the field and aircraft still active would not have been of the latest, but more often of the most abundant at war's end.

Honestly hope Hubert has something for this but we really are springing it on him with some short notice.

Still, perhaps, even if it isn't in there now, it can be added before the release ...

[ January 31, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Taking this futher for those who play against the AI;

IN Human vs Axis AI play (and the Allies win)

If the Player decided to use this POST WWII EAST VS WEST option after Italy and Germany have surrendered the AI would select its role (USSR or ALLIES) based on which was stronger.

If the Russian forces were stronger the AI would assume the role of the USSR. If the Allies were stronger it would assume the role of the Allies in this post WWII conflict.

Perhaps a pop-up box would appear at the end of the Allied victory drum roll asking if you want to continue with the Post WWII East vs West Scenario.

[ January 31, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

"Perhaps a pop-up box would appear at the end of the Allied victory drum roll asking if you want to continue with the Post WWII East vs West Scenario."

Interestingly, while recovering from his car straffing and not long before his death, Erwin Rommel speculated in notes, no doubt hidden away immediately, that in the post war - war - between the USSR and the West.

He thought the initial victory would be Russia's, rolling the Anglo-Allied ground forces back west and south of Paris and out of the Low Countries. At that point he predicted the Soviet supply lines would be shattered by Allied air attacks and their armies pushed back through Germany and into Poland.

In other words, he was calling the same situation in France with the Soviets that he had experienced after D-Day against the Allies.

[Edwin P.]

I agree and SC2 could duplicate this by limiting the supply capability of Germany's cities - devasted by war, Soviet looting, and allied strategic bombing.

I wonder what HC and the rest of the forum thinks about this thread.

Also, I agree with your comments on the Tech level of Weapons in the period to 1950 being limited to L3-4-5, although I would probably give each side Allies and Soviet a free chit in Rockets reflecting the abduction and use of Germany rocket scientists by each side. (and encourage use of this rarely used weapon)

As for the American A bomb I would limit its use to Russia territory and require that it can only be used before the date when Russia tested its own A-Bomb. After this date the US would have been too afraid of a Russian Nuclear counter attack.

[ January 31, 2004, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Yes, that sounds right, it would certainly be interesting.

Will abstain from further posts to leave more room for others.

CvM had a scenario along these lines, the closing campaign against Germany and hopefully he'll give us some of his ideas from the project. It's always good hearing from him.

[ January 31, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

On August 29, 1949, the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb. It came as a great shock to the United States because they were not expecting the Soviet Union to possess nuclear weapon knowledge so soon. Previously, the United States had used two atomic bombs on Japan to cause them to surrender during World War II. The impact that the possession of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union had upon the United States was that it caused Americans to question their own safety.

- Source: www.coldwar.org

Would August 29, 1949, the date the USSR exploded its own A-Bomb mark a natural end to this scenario? with a negotiated peace and Europe divided into East and West and victory determined on the basis of territory controlled? If the allies did not agree to peace would Stalin have used the A-Bomb in Europe? - Ie Allies can accept peace, if not then the USSR is free to use A-Bombs on European cities.

[ January 31, 2004, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

An interesting situation. Various spies had leaked most of the A-bomb details to the USSR even before WWII ended, it was only a matter of working out a leisurely manufacturing process.

Which left the delivery system problem. The United States had the only bomber on earth that could deliver the weapon. Except we'd landed a few in Russia during the war. But no problemo, it wasn't that easy to duplicate one.

Except the supposedly backwards Soviet engineers reverse engineered them and succeeded in the duplication process, getting the required sophisticated electronics parts through Canada and other countries before they were themselves capable of manufacturing them.

So, the Soviet A-bomb came with another surprise, the Soviet B-29, I think the Russian name for them was "B-29 with big red stars!"

In fairness to Soviet aircraft designers, they were themselves working on a comparable long range, high altitude heavy prop bomber, but Stalin ordered the reverse engineering project.

Regarding dropping them, at the time they took a long time to make and neither side had anything like a stockpile till probably the mid-fifties.

[ January 31, 2004, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Okay, it was actually the Tu4 as in Tupolev

< left click here for the Story of the Soviet copy of the B-29, the Tuolev4. >

[ January 31, 2004, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Thanks for the interesting background information and the great photo.

As for the USSR using A-Bombs, would it be fair to assume that the USSR could use 1 a year and that the Allies would lose victory points for the hundreds of thousands of citizens killed and find that those cities are no longer sources of supply? or that the Allies would have the option to reach peace in Europe or lose victory points becasue North Korea conquered South Korea when the US was unable to respond due to the conflict in Europe.

What I am trying to do is, in game terms, come up with a system that would force both sides to a negotiated peace agreement within a resonable amount of time, say by 1950 at the latest.

Is this realistic?

Either side, Allies or USSR can offer the other a peace agreement once a year which the opposing side can accept or reject. Acceptance ends the game. Rejection allows the game to continue. In addition the system will automatically force the USSR to offer peace when specific events occur.

June 25, 1948 Vietnam Delcares Independence

-- If allies are still at war in Europe then the Communists take control of Vietnam from the French. Soviets gain 20 Victory Points.

-- Event Pop-up: Communist revolutionaries siezed control of Vietnam as the French government was unable to reinfornce its colonial garrision due to the continuing war in Europe against the USSR.

-- Soviets offer Allies opportuntity for Peace Agreement due to effect of prolonged war.

August 29, 1949 Russian A-Bomb

-- The Soviet AI offers Peace to the Allies.

-- If Allies reject then the game continues.

June 25,1950 Korean War

-- If Allies are still at war in Europe then

North Korea conquers South Korea. The Soviets gain 20 Victory Points.

-- Soviets offer Allies opportunity to make Peace after Korea Surrenders

January 25,1951 China Invades Taiwan

-- If Allies are still at war in Europe then China conquers Taiwan. Soviets gain 20 Victory Points.

-- Soviets offer Allies opportunity for Peace Agreement.

Game Ends June 1951 as both sides are exhausted by years of war.

[ February 01, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Yes, very much so.

Pure speculation but I'd say two bombs for the USSR and five for the U. S.. Also, the American A-boms by that time had the booster effect with greatly increased their destructive power, though it was in no way comparable to the later Hydrogen bombs.

Glad you like that photo and link, it is an interesting tidbit of history that was never really presented to the public.

One of the key causes for the Korean War was an early 1949 speech to the United Press by Truman's Secretary of State, Dean Attchison in which he stupidly named all the places on earth the United States would fight over, and he forgot to mention South Korea, which were enthusiastically pulling out of at the time.

Listening to the speech, the North Koreans and Soviets drew the obvious conclusion and figured as long as they did it quickly nobody would mind. After all, Korea had always been a single country, it was only an arbitrary line drawn in haste by future general Westmorlen that marked where one side started and the other ended -- a line doing right across a penninsula on the Western coast, that's how hasty it was!

To make matters more indiotic, the United States was openly stating that it would not send anything larger than light artillery to the fledgling South Korean Army. Meanwhile, the USSR was sending new tanks and surplus T-34s to North Korea.

An unneccesary and pathetic blueprint for catastrophe.

[ January 31, 2004, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Reminds me of the first gulf war and the comments by the Ambassador to Iraq which inadvertantly led Saddam Hussein to think that the US would not respond to an attack on Kuwait. Of course she was only stating official state department policy which had not been updated to the new realities of the time.

[JerseyJohn]

Great comparrison. I remember a cliche about more wars having been lost by diplomatic failures than won by victorious generals ... can't remember how it went but it's damn true.