Partisans active in All Large Occupied Allied Countries

[JerseyJohn]

Just a thought, but I think Partisans add a lot of realism to the game. Why not add them to all the large countries?

They should only be active against the Axis as historically they didn't fight the Allies. Axis allies, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria shouldn't have them, nor should Germany (it's Werewolf program never got off the ground).

France had an underground, Germany kept a lot of units there, mainly to watch for an Allied invasion, but also to keep the locals under control.

Spain -- the Spanish invented modern guerilla warfare against Napoleon's occupying garrisons! Require a garrison in Madrid, each of it's cities and it's mine.

Sweden -- I think so. Let's say a garrison in Stokholm, one of the mines and another in the south.

England -- They supplied everyone else's Partisan movements.

Italy had partisans who were extremely active against the occupying Germans.

Norway might also be a good choice, Germany kept a lot of troops there in proportion to the local population and there was always something going on behind the lines. Perhaps German troops ought to be required in the two cities and at the mine to keep things under control.

Poland and Greece should also have garrisons in their capitals, Warsaw and Athens, or risk insurrections like the one that occurred in Warsaw and the earlier, even more desperate Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

Ungarrisoned occupied capitals, including Paris, should have the possibility of raising a partisan unit and liberating the rest of the country. In which case occupying units should hold the areas they are stationed at and not be sent packing to nearest friendly city!

Additionally, Russian partisans should be made much more widespread, as has been suggested by many people in many past threads. I think the Yugoslavian partisans are good. On this scale it would be impossible to accurately portray the actual units and actions, they would have to be hidden, but the pop-up corps from insufficient garrisons forces the Axis to keep troops in it's rear areas, as in the actual war.

[ March 14, 2003, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[KDG]

Just a note on partisons from the manual:

Partison jump to a 70% chance of happening(normally I believe it is 15%) in the Winter.

This is Huberts attempt at having some winter effects - Wouldn't be so bad if there were more turns in the winter - I would have every turn be 2 weeks - Thus more partisons - Thus more affect on supply in Russia.

[Liam]

I'll agree to that John if likewise if Allies conquor Minors, they also have uprisings Also a BadBoy Syndrome. If Germany invades Poland-Norway-Sweden-USSR...That's it... USA/UK/USSR invade Portugal-Spain-Low Countries-Iraq-Finland that they earn a bad reputation and thus have more chance of Partisans. So there is a price as there was historically for Germany being a Warmonger!

Ireland would've revolted and Germany wouldn't sent them whatever they could muster! They didn't have much love for the Brits

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

As it stands now, Allies invading minors would pose that sort of problem, except the United States and Britain didn't go around taking hostages and executing them in the town square. Nor did they pillage everything in sight, press gand men, women and children into forced labor, and leave the country side barren in their wake.

(1) I don't see the Allies (England, France or the USA) making these invasions and (2) If they did they'd have placated the locals and made them believe they were being helped instead of being hurt.

During the war there just wasn't any partisan activity against the Western Allies; no blowing up trains, tracks or bridges, no killing sentries, none of that. Zilch! The basic difference is one side came and fed people and when the other side came in it took all their food. Very few people, other than the deranged, bite the hand that feeds them.

Regarding Ireland, they didn't like the British, true. Perhaps in many cases they even hated them -- some Irish coastal towns went so far as to shine spotlights toward the British coastline to help German night bombers. But they would not in any way have welcomed German occupation. The British would have seemed like saints by comparrison. In no time at all Irishmen would have been dangling from street lamps, exactly as happened everywhere else. There would have been plenty of partisan activity, IRA and otherwise; also, exactly like everywhere else.

Nazi brutality even disgusted Germany's Generals. More than one of Hitler's tirades was caused by highly professional battle commanders protesting the stupidity of SS flying squads running rampant behind the lines organizing mass executions, pillagings, and slave labor drives, leaving the countryside unproductive and an openly hostile population in the fighting troops rear areas.

The only front they weren't a factor in was North Africa. Of course there weren't many civilians in the first place. Also, neither Rommel nor the Italians were retaliatory but mostly it was because the SS didn't operate down there. If they had they'd have complained about the lack of oak trees making mass hangings overly difficult.

I love playing the Axis, but I think it would be good to have an option which handicaps them for being the worst, most senselessly brutal and most totally inept conquerers the earth has ever seen.

The reason I say make it an option is scenario makers should be free to come up with a Germany led by some fictitious Adolf the Pius who goes around shaking his head, saying things like Ah, so terrible, healing is so much better than heiling. -- Only a scenario idea, of course. Adolf the Good vs the Forces of Evil! :eek: But for variants closer to reality I'd like more partisans for the Axis to contend with.

KDG

I didn't realize there was a seasonal factor to it. Like so many others I only glanced quickly through the manual and have spent the overwhelming amount of time playing and reading posts. Not a bad idea, except, of course, the Partisans weren't unionized -- they were out there 24/7 and 365 days a year.

[ March 14, 2003, 03:33 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

I like the current partisan system. While yes there were underground movements in all the occupied countries, Yugoslavia and Russia were the only ones to field Partisan armies.

There is a huge difference in blowing up a railroad track in france versus large sections of land in russia held by their partisans that the germans actually had to recapture. Luftwaffe pilots were warned of these areas as some partisan groups had a very strong anti-aircraft capability.

Then of course if you give all these other countries partisans. You need to have 5th Column working for the germans. Anti-allied partisans for any countries they invade. Definately anti- Soviet partisans in the USSR.

I like the current system. Simplistic, but it works nicely.

Oh I forgot to add, we shouldn't confuse the Warsaw Uprising with a partisan army. The revolt was poorly supplied and wasted a lot of lives.

[ March 14, 2003, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Konstatin V. Kotelnikov ]

[xwormwood]

Konstatin V. Kotelnikov:

You are absolutly right, partisan units in any other country would be a bad joke.

By the way: the french resistance wasn't that important as many think. After their liberation it were the french (that should tell a lot ...) who told everybody how brave and important for the liberation of france the resistance was...

If there should be a new partisan rule at all i could imagine something like a randomly occuring event where a HQ-leader get assisinated by local patriots (this did happend indeed), maybe a little percentage chance that p.e. Manstein get killed and is replaced by the program by a less experienced commander with a worse command rating, just for fun let us call him Paulus...).

[JerseyJohn]

Konstantin

The Warsaw uprising saw large Soviet formations within an easy march of the city and drew the logical conclusion. Stalin drew Stalin's unique conclusion, let the Germans suppress the uprising and kill all the troublemakers. There have been historical justifications for the Soviet indifference to their fate, but the simple truth is Stalin correctly identified these people as the anti-Soviet element and saw their destruction by the Germans as a bonus.

Parisians rose up against the German garrison as the Americans approached. If Stalin's cousin had been the head of a similar United States Government he would no doubt have halted the advance and allowed the SS to double back and wipe out the "Troublemakers" before continuing.

True, they were poorly supplied and equipped, but they were supplied and equipped and would have risen earlier if Germany hadn't left a large number of SS (a major reason for the partisan activity in the first place) and other units in their major cities.

[ March 14, 2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Xwormwood

The reason French resistence didn't appear to be very active is because France was the most heavily garrisoned country in occupied Europe! After D-Day the partisans that had been organizing for over three years came out from hiding and joined the Allies, being formed into regular French units. In many instances partisan bands operated in front of the advancing Allies, making retreat difficult for the withdrawing Germans.

Major formations such as the ones that appeared in Russia and Yugoslavia would have been destroyed even as they were forming.

Partisan activity in France, The Low Countries, Norway and Italy (after the German takeover) was different from the Yugoslav and Russian variety. It was more in the form of small bands, sometimes just spotters and spies. Anything larger would have been impossible.

The game offers no other way to represent partisan activity, so it's either these corps or nothing. The idea of allowing partisans in ever large occupied country is to force the Germans to leave sizable garrisons in them.

[ March 14, 2003, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[KDG]

Hey JerseyJohn,

Just assume that the Germans are miserable in the Winter, and supply is more easily affected, thus the reason for greater chance of Partisons on the winter. Works for me.

Everyone is pretty much agreed that they want winter effects. How to do that with the existing system or SC 2 is the key.

Since supply affects combat results and movement, anything that affects supply makes for a good winter effect. Partisons affect supply, thus more partisons in Winter makes a good winter effect. Making winter longer in turns means more of a winter effect.

[ March 14, 2003, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[JerseyJohn]

KDG

True, but as you say it's only one aspect and the Germans sidestep it completly by leaving a couple of corps near the Pripyet Marshes.

I think weather is a totally seperate subject. Hubert chose to make winter the time for Soviet Partisans to arise, but that's a game decision.

If the opportunity arises they should pop up regardless of the time of year.

[ March 14, 2003, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kuniworth]

SS didnt operate in Northafrica thx to Rommels refusal. Not many people knows that...

[JerseyJohn]

Kuniworth

Absolutely. Also, in North Africa the territory was controlled by Italy; I don't think they wanted them there either. They weren't an independent force in Italy till the Italian Government left the war and switched to the Allies. Even then, Kesselring was a staying force against their activities.

When Rommel was in Northern Italy and France there was nothing he could do about having them in his command, though to my knowledge the SS didn't commit the atrocities in his areas that they committed elsewhere.

The only high ranking regular army German General I know of who actively enforced the most extreme nazi directives and supported the SS was Fieldmarshall Walther von Reichenau (as commander of Sixth Army in 1941). He was an able general but also a fanatical nazi. Richenau died of natural causes, a heart attack, shortly after replacing von Rundstedt as commander of Army Group South during early 1942.

Photo of Fieldmarshal von Richenau

Photo of Fieldmarshal von Rundstect

[ March 14, 2003, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Play that side of the Game though and you need to take into consideration that Stalin was every bit the madman that Hitler was. If you had an IQ of 100 you were going to be sent to a re-education camp if you were lucky!

Hitler was bad, but Stalin was even worse, some say that he killed more of his own people than the Germans. Small disputed fact that he killed Lenin the Great himself and his own death was not an accident either...

The Russians were definitely the worst and every German they captured was going to look forward to death whether or not he was S.S. or sympathetic... Perhaps you tend to forget the harshness of the times and of the Men and Goverments and many Russians saw the German's as Liberators at first. So I could see that nations that Russia invades like finland and Iraq uprising!

As far as Ireland, they have always been uprising and the French well I suppose all you needed to do is hand them a bottle of wine and a loaf of bread and they were happy

[KDG]

Partisons can happen any time of the year, just at a lower pct. in non-winter turns. If we increase the total areas that they could pop up in(instead of just the marsh ares), then they are bound to have the proper effect.

I'm only saying that throught the use of partisons we can achieve a winter effect on the Germans. Like you, I'd prefer a more natural way(on a side note, does anyone actually attack Russia before they prepare for war, people might if start attacking in spring 1941 if winter was harsher), but the game engine as it stands could use the partisons for this purpose.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

You're absolutely right. But as far as partisans go I don't know of any acting acting with any consequence behind the Soviet Lines. As a matter of fact I don't know of anything that went on within all of Russia during Stalin's bloodbath that can even remotely be called a rebellion or insurrection. Is it possible that his oppression and brutatality was so thorough it succeeded in stamping out all opposition?

During the thirties Soviet Russia was billed as a Mecca for artists, musicians and ahtletes.

Russian filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein came back to Russia after passing on numerous offers to relocate, and lived the rest of his life in fear of Stalin, who may actually have killed him after he finished part II of Ivan the Terrible in 1944 (comparatively young and fit, Eisenstein nontheless had a fatal heart attack).

The same for his close friend, Sergei Prokofiov, who wrote the great film scores for his movies. Prokoviev was terrified of Stalin and they died within a day of each other.

The German mathemetician, philosopher and long time world chess champion Emmanuel Lasker moved to the USSR in 1934 and abruptly decided to remain in England when his tournament results began declining.

[JerseyJohn]

KDG

Agreed. In the game it's Hubert's judgement call. Maybe he'll change it further on. I hope so.

[Liam]

John, they've often said that it's not what you did but whether you won or not! As far as history will remeber you, perhaps Hitler wasn't harsh enough for a Dictator and Stalin was. If you're going to be Evil, don't attempt to be evil, halfway! Then again! Perhaps Russia would've never toppled so fast had she be a bit more reasonable and paranoid Stalin would've never existed the War would've been over a lot earlier instead of a prolonged painful loss for USSR. She lost more than anyone<no leaders, in 1941 certianly doesn't help but historically accurate> Zhukov himself was killed by Stalin no? By a German spy lol

[JerseyJohn]

Liam, interesting thoughts. I think the main difference between Hitler's form of murder and Stalin's was the basic purpose. Hitler and his sidekicks put racism first. Stalin would never have, and didn't, kill off entire nationalities or religions only because of that fact alone. He might exile them enmasse to Siberia, as he did even during the war to, I believe it was Uzbeks but I'm probably wrong (I'm sure Konstantin knows the correct group) because many of them fought with the Germans (many of them also fought for the Soviets, but that meant nothing to Stalin, they were pulled from the ranks and sent to Siberia with everyone else!).

But even in that example, the group in question were not killed unproductively but rather uprooted and sent to settle a harsh habitat nobody else wished to live in.

Hitler did his own share of political killings but people like von Manstein and von Rundstedt weren't sent off to firing squads because he felt threatened by them.

In short, Hitler's brand of murderous terror was irrational and unproductive and did nothing to serve the state except make it less productive. Stalin's murdering ways were always channelled, somehow, into the places and people who might actually have posed a threat to his position. Along the way he killed uncounted millions of innocents, but his genuine enemies and even his potential enemies were also eliminated in the slaughter.

Stalin was a phenomenom. He should never have risen to such power in Lenin's government. By taking a job nobody else wanted, Party Secretary, Stalin managed within a few years to become the administrative center of the Socialist Party.

He became Lenin's liason when he became terminally ill and actually changed his will, having it read that Lenin's choice for his successor was Stalin when in reality he'd named Trotsky. Going even further, Stalin arranged beforehand for Trotsky to be thousands of miles off when Lenin, no doubt helped along by Stalin, died suddenly. Trotsky wasn't even able to make it back for the funeral.

What happened to Trotsky is fairly well known. He was first arrested, then exiled, and eventually assasinated by the KGBs predecessor, I believe it was 1938 or 39 when Trotsky had an accident involving an icepick and his skull in Mexico.

From that point, Stalin began a long repititious process of manipulating people, then having them either disappear or by holding their families hostage getting them to make confessions in absurd public trials.

The secret police chiefs who helped him with these acts were themselves periodically disposed of till Yvrenti Berria came along. Has was as much an anitchrist as Stalin and they worked incredibly well together.

After Stalin's death, Nikita Kruschev and the other members of the former Inner Circle lured Berria to a secret meeting and strangled him with their own hands. What a Government!

[ March 14, 2003, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[disorder]

jersey john you said---

"Regarding Ireland, they didn't like the British, true. Perhaps in many cases they even hated them -- some Irish coastal towns went so far as to shine spotlights toward the British coastline to help German night bombers. But they would not in any way have welcomed German occupation. The British would have seemed like saints by comparrison. In no time at all Irishmen would have been dangling from street lamps, exactly as happened everywhere else. There would have been plenty of partisan activity, IRA and otherwise; also, exactly like everywhere else. "

and---"Parisians rose up against the German garrison as the Americans approached."

as SEALION approaches england, after shutting down the raf, SOME irish would have been falling all over themselves to aid the germans.

fact #1 a Nazi embassy in Dublin operated up to the end of the war

fact #2influenced by Mussolini, one Eoin O'Duffy started the "National Corporate Party" prior to the war. he had links with the IRA, and built up the 'blueshirts'.

fact#3 During the Spanish Civil War, their was an international Brigade composed of Irish volunteers that fought for the Nationalist Party.

LORD HAW HAW WAS AN IRISHMAN!

fact#4 At the end of World War II, Éamon de Valera (President)paid a formal visit of condolence on the German ambassador to Ireland when he heard about Hitler's suicide. De Valera considered this to be the proper thing to do.

In his victory broadcast Churchill could not restrain himself from making an attack on de Valera and Irish neutrality. Several days later de Valera responded, justifying his policy and winning himself many supporters by the calm and statesmanlike way in which he refuted Churchill's accusations.

World War II meant an economic boom for Northern Ireland but the south did not share in this. Beside the social unrest which was omnipresent there, there was a group of german sympathizers who would undoubtedly have aided the germans on a british isle takeover.

remember, whoever is an enemy to YOUR ENEMY IS A FRIEND.

as a countries fortunes decline, some people switch sides, food, safety, warmth, loot, etc. obviously the ireland revolt is not historical because it never happened. but...i believe it would have.

(Overheard at Mickey d's today)

"supersize those FREEDOM FRIES please"

[JerseyJohn]

disorder

Excellent.

What I was talking about was an Ireland ruled by the Germans, not an Irish Fascist State, which undoubtedly would have got on very well with the German rulers of Britain, especially if the Germans had been wise enough to unify Ireland again under Fascist Irish rule.

I knew most, though not all of what you just stated. Glad you posted it. The Irish were very, very anti-British during the war.

When I make scenarios I routinely make southern Ireland a British Ally but it's only to balance out MPPs; can't make them a German Ally unless I want Britain to go in and conquer them, which I don't (plunder factor).

Despite all that, there's no doubt in my mind that, under direct German administration, even the Irish would have wound up hating the nazis.

BTW, when I first heard these stories from former GIs I was very skeptical. Fortunately I've always had a love for Guiness on tap and consequently conducted a great deal of historical research in Irish American Pubs. While not taking Irish American stories of the Old Sod very seriously, I listened very attentively to what born Irishmen had to say who had lived there during the war years. I was amazed and shocked to hear their views. Yes, they were much more fascist then I ever imagined; probably further in that direction than either Franco's Spaniards or Mussolini's Italians (I'm talking about the average citizen).

I believe, if Britain had signed a peace treaty with Germany after the fall of France, Ireland would have officially allied itself with Nazi Germany. To do so during the war itself, while Britain was still holding it's own, would have been suicidal, of course.

Once again, thanks for the info.

[ March 14, 2003, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[xwormwood]

JerseyJohn:

"...I don't know of anything that went on within all of Russia during Stalin's bloodbath that can even remotely be called a rebellion or insurrection..."

as far as i know there were anti-soviet partisans in the ukraine (sorry, can't remember the english name of this country)who struggled for independency from the USSR. I have seen a documantation where these now old men said, that they received weapons and provisions from the retreating wehrmacht ("the enemy of my enemy...)". It seems that there were large regions near the rumanian border which couldn't be entered by soviet troops at night until the late forties. They lived in the forrests and mountains and had tunnelssystems (vietcong-like).

---

"...He might exile them enmasse to Siberia, as he did even during the war to, I believe it was Uzbeks but I'm probably wrong..."

many minorities were exiled during the war (not only to siberia): don kosaken, wolgadeutsche, people from the annexed baltic states and many many more.

[disorder]

jerseyjohn said -- They (partisans)should only be active against the Axis as historically they didn't fight the Allies. Axis allies, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria shouldn't have them, nor should Germany

i guess i had always thought of the brits as the occupational army in "UK", since shortly after ww1. therefore after an uprising, the irish would be the official "irish" partisans who just happened to chose to side with the nazis instead of the deeply hated brits.

i agree wholeheartedly with the thought that the nazis were irrational, chaotic, and professional murderers and thugs. indiscriminite killers, lashing out at group after group.

im sure that even the traiter french who served the nazis swung around and hated them.

but still, as i have posted once before, this good-evil thingy doesn't hold water.

lets use a current day example. communism.

hated ,despised. the worst form of government.

finally in the 1980's this horrid government is overthrown, and sensibility returns to russia. AND WHAT IS NOW ONE OF THE STRONGER POLITICAL PARTIES IN RUSsIA AND IT'S SATELITES? communism--these are the same people who used to list the atrocities of the kremlin. now they have a choice, and they actually choose communism. it's unreal. kinda like voting for clinton twice

the only difference between a pro-axis partisan group springing up in allied occupied territory, and a trusted friend springing up in allied occupied territory, is how happy healthy and wealthy they are.

some ethiopians were just whacko for italy. shouldn't it also be possible for a pro-italy partisan group to arise there if occupied by the allies? keep up the good work jersey john, i enjoy all of your posts, i just happen to disagree with this one. hey, is it possible to get a scenario you made? or are they available somewhere to download? i'd love to play one.

[Liam]

I think the real point John was trying to make was the fact that despite all of the Nazi/Fascist sympathizers ultimately they never really took control of anything far as I know besides Argentina? Which is kind of shocking as they would be right after Slav-African-Asian Heritage as far as cleansing was concerned. Obviously the Japanese never knew the hatred the Germans had for their race, although they probably didn't care being that the sphere of influence was far from one another and the Allies were too much of a mutual enemy.

Japan and Germany really was a bad idea for an Alliance.

I would say that if Russia invaded Sweden and Iraq in WW2 that the UK wouldn't of sat back and watched it. She would've maybe lived with it. You tend to forget that invading nations doesn't go along at all with the Ally philosphy. It doesn't fit correctly unless there was the presence of Axis elements! It's Ahistorical!

Even Russia had to watch her Expanionist desires as Japan was put in check by the US. Britian making peace with Germany and Germany expanding into Russia without UK as ally was a very real threat for Stalin. Similarly Stalin making peace with Hitler and then turning his attention to the UK was a real threat for Churchill.

As far as a Evil Regime, there are a dime a dozen. This one just conquored almost all of Europe is all! At the time one of the wealthiest locations in the World<top next to the US mainland> So the power enabled them to do their Will and thus they stand out in history above others. Though some would say Napoleon and Stalin as evil, and their heartless Regimes.. Or even that of Imperial Japan

[JerseyJohn]

xwormwood

I think the main problem with our documenting our thoughts on this is the obscure nature of the subject due to a lack of information. Stalin's government wasn't big on releasing facts and figures on rebellions against it's own regime! What you say sounds correct, though. The Germans distributed a lot of weapons throughout sourthern Russia and the Caucasus. Those areas were also the hardest hit by Stalinist "relocations" during the 1930's.

What really gives me the chills is how many of these groups were stomped on not once or twice, but perhaps twenty or thirty times in the century of, say, 1850 to 1950! Corrupt Czarist officials, Turks, para-military bandits, white Russians, Bolsheiviks, anti-Bolsheiviks, Bolsheiviks again, purges, relocations, German SS squads, German arms, local retaliations, reoccupation by Stalinist troops, executions and deportations . . .. What a way to live!

[JerseyJohn]

disorder

It's odd that over the months I've come to be the defender of such interests as Britain and Vichy France at one time and of Nazi war criminals at another time. Guess that proves what a crazy era it was and the convolutions we all go through trying to discuss it so often.

All my life I've been extremely pro-Irish. While the British occuplation seems mile by comparisson to Germany's occupation of Poland, it was, in fact a humiliating and cruel oppression that has lasted hundreds of years. What's always bothered me about the British methods in their "Home Isles" is the way they've historically attempted to break the Celts so they could reconstruct them as subserviant people. The Irish and Scots have good cause to dislike or even hate the British as do the Welsh except the misdeeds in Wales probably go back too far to arouse contemporary ill feelings.

Having said that, I have to also say that, because of it's proximity to Britain, Ireland is an odd situation. As far back as the French Revolution they and Napoleonic era they've actively sought foreign intervention to help drive the British from their lands. Yet, they're right next to Britain and, like a moon caught in a gravitational pull, are forced to deal with them in virtually everything they do.

It's unfortunate for Ireland that nature didn't place them a few hundred miles farther west in the Atlantic, I'm sure they'd have developed much differently and with the greater independance they've always fought so bitterly for.

Ironically, the Romans who loved to conquer and annex other people's lands, couldn't quite figure out what Ireland was. They heard stories of a beautiful grassy land with harsh weather and foggy shores, then there were other tales of places that sound like Iceland and Norway. None of these tales ever made mention of silk, spices or gold so the Romans never longed to conquer them. After a while they drew the line, saying that beyond Gaul there was nothing but strange Islands, England being the first and largest. They moved in to defend their continental interests and, even though Britannia later became one of the better provinces, they drew the line at venturing across the Irish Sea, or even very far into Scotland. At the other extreme, Roman soldiers thought Yemman was near the entrance to Hades and nearly mutinied when asked to establish and outpost there.

So, getting back to Ireland and Scotland I guess it's all a tradeoff, having been left alone by the first great Imperialist Empire they paid with interest in being gobbled up by Rome's distant successor.

Thanks for the interest in my scenarios and the good word on my entries; I likewise get great enjoyment out of yours and think it's good that we differ occasionally in our specific views on things. Nothing is more boring than absolute harmony!

I've uploaded one to Otto's called Brest-Litovsk Aftermath. It's based on a turning point in history that's always intrigued me; how would twentieth century Europe have progressed if Kaiser Wilhelm II had accepted the British and French peace offering in 1918 after Russia's withdrawl from the Great War.

In the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Germany received outright annexation of Poland and established Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as Protectorates along with something like 2/3 of European Russia in the form of another protectorate called Ukrainia. In exchange for peace and the return of Norther France/Belgium, Britain and France offered not only to recognize the treaty, but also to return Germany's African colonies. Thinking he'd win everything in the summer offensive, the Kaiser foolishly refused.

My scenario begins in Sept of 1939 with Britain, France and Russia fighting Germany and Italy. Beyond that the situation is too complex to try and cover here. I see you've got an E-mail envelope and will send you a copy winzipped along with the appropriate documentation. As I say in the Official Game Forum, the scenario is only intended to represent my personal ideas; people who play it should feel free to add their own interpretations.

The version at Otto's is roughly what I had in mind but I've added revisions and am currently expanding the documentation with more explanations behind my game decisions and a greatly expanded alternate history account of the altered twenties and thirties after the Great Peace of 1918 ended the war with Germany not only intact, but much more powerful than it had dreamed of being in 1914.

I'll get the revised version to you in a bout a week. Sorry for the delay, but I want to finish it properly this time.

Also, as it's all hypothetical, there are at least six alternate scenarios to this same situation that I've been working on.

[ March 15, 2003, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]