The Grand Campaign

[Briggs]

What are the starting conditions of the first scenario (Or whichever scenario encompasses the entire war)? I'm looking forward to doing some interesting things with Germany, like not attacking Poland till maybe 1940-1941 while building up and researching. Does the gran scenario start out with countries at war? Or is there no war on at all?

Cheers,

Panzer.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

i beleive the 1939 scenario starts out with you already at war w/ poland. however you can use the scenario editor to change that. i agree, i want to wait on poland as well.

[Von_Manteuffel]

Waiting on Poland might be hard, since you need what you plunder from them to beat France.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Panzer Lehr:

What are the starting conditions of the first scenario (Or whichever scenario encompasses the entire war)? I'm looking forward to doing some interesting things with Germany, like not attacking Poland till maybe 1940-1941 while building up and researching.

Interesting approach, Panzer Lehr. So let's take a look. What would be the advantages?

I would guess that Italy's entry is based mostly on what happens in France, so Italy coming in earlier on the Axis side would give them a running head start on dominating the Mediterranean, before Britain could establish adequate defenses.

And, you would be able to send out the U-boats that much earlier, presuming that you have devised a successful strategy for evading the RN, which likely starts the game at full strength.

Plus, France would not have 6 months to build up her defenses, so you would benefit from conquering them earlier and getting the higher # of MPPs -- France is worth more in plunder, and in resources, than Poland.

SeaLion would probably be -- at least possible a little sooner than Britain might want (... even the threat would be sufficient to cause her to stay closer to home, rather than risking foreign adventures -- like reinforcing Egypt or invading Norway).

And, I am guessing that there would not be as much negative influence on the war-entry percentages of all those eastern minors (... this is where having Russia as an independent player would be more important, maybe even critical, since Germany doesn't have to worry about Russia sneaking in the back door :eek: )

All in all, it sounds pretty good, and I can't think of any major disadvantages -- anybody else have any ideas on this?

[pzgndr]

Or is there no war on at all?

If we throw history to the wind and use the old AH Diplomacy game as a guide, it would be interesting to see an eventual option for all majors to start as active neutrals with no pre-determined alliances. It would be hell to program random entry conditions for the various possibilities, but what a multi-player free-for-all that would be.

Assuming the historical alliances in SC won't change anytime soon, the game should start with an at-war situation. Germany at-war with Poland (or earlier with Czechoslovakia, but that would require a map change) is a result of a natural progression of events and should remain as the initial condition. Now whether Britain and France actually enter the war over this could be an option. France was reluctant, so may have a lower chance of random entry. What if the Molotov deal fell through and there was no Nazi-Soviet pact, and Russia enters the war over Poland while Britain and France remain neutral? If neither Britain, France or Russia enter the war over Poland, then one or more certainly should at the next sign of German aggression.

It should be easier to fiddle with these possibilities within the context of the historical alliances, rather than create different alliances or provide a free-for-all. It would require changing the game some to provide an option for Britain and France to start neutral with either stay neutral or random entry conditions, but this should be possible. Random entry conditions for everybody would have to be reconsidered, but again this should be possible. Then we could develop some good what-if scenarios. :cool:

[DevilDog]

What the disadvantages for the France first approach in the game would be, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

In real life this wasn't even an option. The Wehrmacht wasn't close to being ready to take France on in September '40. They had no invasion plans at all. Their panzer forces hadn't been fully organized yet. Many of the German generals thought Hitler was crazy because they thought that by invading Poland, France would declare war and invade Germany. And then it would all be over. IIRC germany had all of 7 divisions on the western front during the Fall of '40; just a speed bump to the French. But even if Hitler had massed all his available troops against France, they wouldn't have stood a chance of any kind of offensive action, as they were still mobilizing. In fact, in May '41 when the invasion of France did take place, the Germans were still outnumbered by the French and British.

But if it is allowed in the game it might be an interesting strategy, or more likely a fun variant set up with the editor (assuming pre-mobilization by the Germans).

[Directive#21]

The Wehrmacht wasn't close to being ready to take France on in September '40.

Hey DevilDog... the Wehrmacht had already defeated France by September '40 ... You were just checking to make sure I was paying attention!

Directive#21

[ July 17, 2002, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Directive#21 ]

[husky65]

Originally posted by DevilDog:

IIRC germany had all of 7 divisions on the western front during the Fall of '40; just a speed bump to the French.

Its worth noting that the French lacked any sort of mobile offensive doctrine and were mostly trained to sit in bunkers, their morale was shot before the kick off (they expected another WW1 style bloodbath).

I doubt a French offensive would have been effective.

[Straha]

Devildog: what you describe is in fact more or less the situation when Hitler planned to take on Czechoslovakia in 38 with only 12 divisions. The general staff was even seriously preparing for a putsch then. But in September 39, the situation differed considerably. For starters, the Westwall was completed. Those seven divisions manning the defensive line were considered enough to halt any French offensive as long as the *bulk* of the forces (Army group North and South) was occupied in Poland. The tank army (which were in miserable shape in 38) was now fully operational. But, of course, in case of a France first scenario, these forces would all be in the West. I do not have the exact numbers available right now, but in September 39, Hitler had already more than enough fully equipped divisions to take on France.

Of course, France first would have been a mistake nevertheless as it would not even leave a minimum chance for averting a world war altogether. (Though probable, it was not *really* clear whether Britain and France would actually go to fight over Poland, especially in case Poland was defeated quickly.)

Straha

[Briggs]

I think I would find it rather interesting to see England, desperate to avoid another war, sit back and watch while Hitler stops all over France (England's age-old enemy) and England and Germany get the good natured trade agreement that Hitler was after. Then, Germany, England and America band together and squash the UUSR, divide it betweem them, and rumble on towards the Rising Sun.

[Camicie Nere]

Except for the fact that Britain would NEVER, EVER have done anything other than to oppose the efforts of a single power to dominate the European continent. There's about 500 years of historical precedent behind this, the singular feature of English foreign policy.

[DevilDog]

Directiv#21:

Good catch of my typo. Of course I meant Sept '39.

Straha:

I think you're wrong on the Germans being ready to take on France in '39. I've read several books by some of the German generals (usually self serving about how if only it wasn't for Hitler they would have won the war) and they all agree that the main German fear in September '39 was that the French would attack, and that if this happened they would be in Berlin before the Germans could react. There was only about a one month window where this held, but the Wehrmacht was unable to go on the offense against France in late fall '39 like Hitler wanted. The attack on France had to be postponed several times. True some of this had to do with redeployment, but some of it also had to do with mobilization and reorganization of the German forces.

Some of the best books I've read on the subject were from the Library - the next time I go I'll look for them and let you know the titles.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Straha:

I do not have the exact numbers available right now, but in September 39, Hitler had already more than enough fully equipped divisions to take on France

In game terms, here is what is available at start, September 3, 1939 (RE: SuperTed's AAR screenshots):

In Prussia: 1 Army, 1 Corps

In Germany: 2 HQs, 4 Army, 5 Corps, 2 Tanks, 3 Air Fleets

More than enough to take Lowlands & France, given that France has not built up to May of '40 strength.

The question is -- and assuming you do not try this strategy with a new scenario, would it be worth it to shift strength West, or just go ahead and take the two turns it would take to conquer Poland by October 1?

It would cost maybe 100-150 MPPs to operate the few units that could not march that far (allowing two turns to re-orient the forces West), and you would have to leave behind a small blocking force in case the Polish AI decided to push into Germany.

Given all the advantages for a France-first strategy, and there seems to be quite a few, would it still be worth it to just ignore Poland until later?

If you try this strategy by constructing a new scenario, and base your manpower decisions on what Hubert has deemed appropriate, then you can easily see that you would have quite a Wehrmacht force at the beginning of the game.

You could commence the invasion by October 1, and if reasonably lucky or competent, finish the French campaign by early December '39 -- 6 or 7 months ahead of schedule.

[Briggs]

Originally posted by Camicie Nere:

Except for the fact that Britain would NEVER, EVER have done anything other than to oppose the efforts of a single power to dominate the European continent. There's about 500 years of historical precedent behind this, the singular feature of English foreign policy.

Which is why we have games, so we can simulate these what-if's.

[Straha]

Originally posted by DevilDog:

Directiv#21:

Good catch of my typo. Of course I meant Sept '39.

Straha:

I think you're wrong on the Germans being ready to take on France in '39. I've read several books by some of the German generals (usually self serving about how if only it wasn't for Hitler they would have won the war) and they all agree that the main German fear in September '39 was that the French would attack, and that if this happened they would be in Berlin before the Germans could react. There was only about a one month window where this held, but the Wehrmacht was unable to go on the offense against France in late fall '39 like Hitler wanted. The attack on France had to be postponed several times. True some of this had to do with redeployment, but some of it also had to do with mobilization and reorganization of the German forces.

Some of the best books I've read on the subject were from the Library - the next time I go I'll look for them and let you know the titles.

devildog:

The plans for Fall Weiss are at least as old as 1938. I, too, remember that Hitler in the very early stages of examination had considered whether Poland could be beaten so fast as to attack France in late Fall, but he then de facto adopted the opinion of his general staff that this is not possible. That's part of the reason why the completion of the Westwall was hurried. When the actual preparations for Fall Weiss began in April 39, it is *certain* that Hitler had no plans whatsoever of attacking France in Fall 39, anymore. Instead, what he wanted was to beat Poland quickly so that the Allies would decide that it makes no sense to go to war over it. In case France attacked nevertheless, the Westwall with its divisions was to stall them.

So the situation in August 39 is: the bulk of the German army (more than one and a half million men!) is positioned to attack Poland. The Westwall is comparatively lightly manned and preparations are purely defensive. So maybe here's a misunderstanding: in *this setting*, Hitler could, of course, not take on France in Fall 39 as the forces were positioned wrongly for that. Noone would dispute that. But that's not what me and others meant when saying Germany would have been ready to take on France in 39. She would, if she would have positioned army groups North and South in the West, and that would make for an alternate scenario. (Few people know that the relations between Poland and Germany were extremely friendly until 39 when Hitler decided to press the issue of Danzig and the Korridor. So the alternate "France first" scenario could pretend something along the line that Germany did not change her politics against Poland, but instead pressed France for Alsace, but then, at the last moment, Poland decided to switch over to the Allies etcetc ... )

Now about the French being in Berlin before the Germans can react:

Let me tell you that on August 23, 1939, the French general staff under Gamelin in a meeting with Daladier and Bonnet came to the following conclusion about what would happen if Germany would attack Poland soon:

- France would not be able to do anything in the "early stages of the war" (which would be, according to Gamelin until next spring!)

- Poland would last at least until spring.

- France would successfully defend her borders against a German offensive. In the spring, help from UK and Britain would make a German victory impossible in the long run.

- But France would not be ready to go on the offensive until 1941/42!

Note that they had full intelligence about what the Germans had in the West at that time.

Today, it is customary to chide the French general staff for being "timid" ("... if they would have attacked they would have overrun the Germans while they were occupied in Poland"). But this is simply not true. Gamelin was no idiot. He was right that his troops were not ready for an offensive war in Fall 39. To attack Germany the moment Germany attacks Poland, France would have had to begin with preparations for this at least in spring 39, probably even earlier. But they did not even mobilize until the war had begun!

Straha

[ July 19, 2002, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

[pzgndr]

Instead, what he wanted was to beat Poland quickly so that the Allies would decide that it makes no sense to go to war over it.

Straha, right. There was a very good chance this may have happened. Which would make my suggestion for a neutral Britain and France option worth pursuing for a what-if scenario. The early France option would still be there, but the fight would be tough. Remember also that German units and HQs would not have the experience levels gained from the Poland and Norway campaigns, so it's not exactly May 40 moved up to September 39. Also, US entry may be accelerated by an earlier French defeat, and certainly delayed if France decides to be the aggressor, so these are long-term consequences to consider. Starting a game with Britain and France neutral with random entry conditions would be very interesting indeed.

[Straha]

In the meantime I could look up the figures for the Westwall in 39 (just before the start of the war). There were at least 23 divisons in the West, not just 7, which then probably is a figure relating to 38. (Btw some sources say 26, I couldn't go to the lengths of verifying that.)

I think I now can also tell more what the confusion in this thread was about. Indeed, though Poland was not mopped up until the end of September, it became clear that victory was achieved already on September 7. So, Hitler *again* decided to attack in the West already in the Fall, i.e. in November. The general staff's opinon was that they were not ready for *that* because after they had *just fought* a war they needed time not only to transfer the troops, but also for resupply etc. (This is important because the suggestion for an alternate scenario was precisely to skip war with Poland). There was a brief period where the collaborators of 38 again planned to overthrow Hitler in case he nevertheless issues the final order to attack.

But Hitler himself seems have to realized that things took more time, and in the following, Fall Gelb was routinely delayed from fourthnight to fourthnight until the historical date.

Btw it is astounding to see how many chances for peace there were until then! If it wasn't for Hitler, who *insisted* on eventually slugging it out with France once and for all, peace could have been restored on more than acceptable terms.

Straha

[Randell Daigre]

I doubt very much that the Poles and Czechs would have considered the terms acceptable.