North America

[Edwin P.]

Would a land hex linking Canada and the US make a German invasion of the US easier to support?

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

Question: After the war started how many ships did the US send from the Pacific to the Atlantic?

I don't know off hand but probably the bulk of the destroyers, the newest battleships and cruisers. After Pearl Harbor a lot of them were transferred back to the Pacific. The new aircraft carriers were still being built.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

Would a land hex linking Canada and the US make a German invasion of the US easier to support?

If it started in Canada and that country was a German conquest, yes.

But that's the way it should be; the two countries are connected by one of the longest borders on earth! Plus, in the East, The Hudson River runs straight south almost from the Canadian Border down to the Atlantic at New York City.

[ May 16, 2003, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[jon_j_rambo]

You think the Russians were tough defending their homeland in WW-2; just imagine the Americans on US soil! It would be a laugher...the German conquest of Poland, Denmark, LC, France, etc. is over-rated. Tanks against farmers is nothing to goosestep about.

The Germans wouldn't have last 3-days anywhere on North American.

Rambo, Captain of team U.S.A.

[Panzer39]

What if the Germans rolled up through Mexico into Texas? They would be fighting on very open ground against cow hands Now I am pretty certain that the Germans could not conquer the US, that is crazy. But if they gained control of the Gulf of Mexico, and used Mexico as a base of operations? I could see them taking a huge part of the South West before being stopped. Say the Japanese also got into the mix and managed to take Hawaii after the destruction of the US pacific fleet at Midway. They could be bombing the west coast, maybe landing troops in Southern California for a German link up. Add a second smaller German landing in Canada that takes care of the last UK holdouts and rolls down into the states. The US is fighting a three front war If anything it would be a very big morale crusher for the USA who has never faced a foreign invasion since its independence.

I am not sure why the Axis would want to do such a thing, if the UK and USSR are already gone I don't think they have much to worry about from the USA, besides a cold war. I guess an invasion could knock the USA out the war if they take a lot of ground than suddenly stop and say they will pack up and leave for a peace treaty I doubt they would get a surrender without the A-bomb.

In terms of SC2 I would love to see a World Map in order to play something like this out. It would certianly make the end game much more interesting. I already have a vision of Mexico joining the Axis after the fall of the USSR and Army Group Rommel reclaiming the Texas oil wells for them

[ May 17, 2003, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Panzer39 ]

[Wachtmeister]

Germans attacking Texas through Mexico? The supply and logistics of such a campaign alone would be nearly insurmountable. Mexico has few suitable bases and no worthwhile ports. Even today, much less in the '40's, Mexico's largest port is Houston, Texas. In addition there would be a 3000 mile longer, easily interdictible, sea-supply route through the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico.

The Rio Grande valley itself is good (flat) tank country. However, it is bordered by about 300 miles of mostly desert mountain country on the Mexican side, and 200-400 miles of rolling semi-desert dense mesquite scrub country on the Texas side, before useful objectives, such as San Antonio or Houston could be reached. Want to try for El Paso? - only another 740 miles to the west through even more empty and hostile country.

Russia had Generals "Mud" and "Winter". Here in Texas we have Generals "Drought" and "Summer", along with ocasional blitzkrieg visits from General "Hurricane", and Colonel Tornado.

[Panzer39]

North Africa all over again I assumed that the Germans already had Naval superiority to begin with. My post had more to do with Rambo's post about not lasting 3 days. I also feel that they would have a better chance with a rolling start than a sea invasion of the East coast. You are also right about the lack of objectives, as I said in my post it is more of a morale thing. I live in Louisiana and have been through Texas a couple of times so I know what you are talking about. Instead, maybe they could go into Texas, head west and stumble across Los Alamos and get the Bomb

[ May 17, 2003, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Panzer39 ]

[JerseyJohn]

"Germans attacking Texas through Mexico? The supply and logistics of such a campaign alone would be nearly insurmountable. Mexico has few suitable bases and no worthwhile ports. Even today, much less in the '40's, Mexico's largest port is Houston, Texas. In addition there would be a 3000 mile longer, easily interdictible, sea-supply route through the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico."-- Wachtmeister

That's the long and the short of it; a logistical nightmare. The only outside chance in pre-nuclear war terms, in my humble opinion, would have been if all of South America were completely Axis and served as the supply base. Even then it borders upon logistical impossibility; unless the invading armies had such a huge technological and training edge that the actual battles were no contest so they'd just be moving from bloodless victory to bloodless victory. An unlikely possibility.

But I have to also agree with Panzer that the Invasion U. S. A. idea would be an interesting scenario for it's own sake, though we'd need to suspend our disbelief in playing it, which I think is how Panzer intended the idea.

In the movie Casablanca Rick advises German Major Strasser that there are some neighborhoods in New York he'd advise them not to invade. I think the same can be said for several cities in Texas.

"Invade the United States? Don't be absurd, we're Frogs not Dragons!"

I don't see an invasion of the US having been possible through Canada either, nor do I see an invasion of Canada from Europe being possible either. All of which is consistant with the basic position that neither the United States nor Canada should even be represented on the map.

The South America suggestion was alson intended only from the standpoint of providing ports as a refuge for Axis ships so they could be supplied and repaired and we could have a more legitimate Battle of the Atlantic.

I think the Atlantic map should include Iceland, perhaps the southern tip of Greenland in the North. In the south, the Canary Islands and the Azores -- naval and air bases to either hit or protect convoy routes and the rest would be ocean. The rest was only suggested to offset the representation of North America on the map, give the game some oceanic north<->south possibilities in addition to it's east<->west aspect.

If South America, or a league of major South American nations, had been either pro-Axis or openly Axis, as discussed earlier, I think the best course for the US would still have been fighting Germany first, go for the head. An invasion of South America, assuming their troops and equipment were credible, with it's hard terrain and other complicating factors would promise to be as long and difficult as an invasion of Europe.

As was also stated by Shaka, the idea was really to expand the naval war, maybe get some blockading action and Axis convoys for the allies to take shots at and the Axis to protect. And was mostly for Z-Plan campaigns; Germany would have needed a much larger navy, particularly in destroyers and cruisers to even comtemplate running convoys across the Atlantic to the coast of France. Although individual vessels made the trip throughout the entire war.

[ May 17, 2003, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Wachtmeister]

Panzer 39:

Although I agree that Axis advances through Mexico to Texas make for an interesting "what if" scenerio, the very Axis Naval supremacy assumed as a pre-condition would have been extremely unlikely for many years. As of mid-1944 the USN had about 18 large (CV) carriers - at least level 3 in SC terms. Also there were about 10 or 11 CVL's each with significant striking power, and swarms of escort carriers, primarily used for convoy ASW escort and close air support for the various island assults in the Pacific.

There were also 18-20 Battleships about 10 of which mounted 9 - 16" guns and the older ones 14" guns. These capital ships were well supported by ample numbers of CA's(8" guns)CL's and DD's. If this isn't enough, there was considerable long range air recon and ASW patrol capability throughout the Caribbean, operating from USA bases and the ones we received from the UK in exchange for 50 old flush deck four stacker DD's. Even if the "victorious" Germans had built all the ships envisioned by the "Z" plan, they would have been far short of the naval power necessary to do much more than scratch the paint on USN ships. By 1946, the above force could have been double in size, judging from the list of ships that were laid down, partially completed, and then cancelled immediately before and after VJ day,

Of course, the bulk of The USN forces were deployed in the Pacific, but once the Japanese were driven out of the Philipines in '44, and the IJN offensive capability virtually eliminated, a much smaller force could have been used to contain Japan while the USN submarine fleet continued to strangle her supplies.

On the other hand, one Kriegesmarine "wild card" that comes to mind might have been the earlier completion and deployment of their advanced subs, powered by a unique peroxide gas turbine technology.(Jet subs?!) This advanced technology provided for both long submerged endurance and high submerged speed. These subs apparently had the capabilty to out-run most escorts submerged, especially the relatively slow DDE's and corvettes charged with protecting convoys. Could the advanced subs in large numbers have tipped the Balance? Another of many "what ifs".

[Panzer39]

One would have to assume like I said in my previous post that the USN lost the major battles in the Pacific (Midway most certianly could have been a loss) and the Japanese had taken large parts of Alaska and Hawaii. I was viewing the possible invasion of North America as an end game option where both Japan and Germany had no one else to fight (Maybe each other on how to divide the British Empire?).

OR one could give the Kriegsmarine the option of having taken control of the French Fleet after the fall of France and could go even further by saying they were able to get their hands on some parts of the RN after sea lion. All very far fetched but a lot more fun than taking Maine and thus all of the USA

[SeaMonkey]

Guys, you forgot to mention, "EVERY FRICKIN PERSON IN TEXAS OWNS GUNS" and a lot of them. Invade through the "Republic of Texas", yeah right, maybe if they're aliens from outerspace. We have this thing called "The Alamo" mentality, glad to see it kind of sweeping through the homeland presently. But it is an interesting "what if". If your into "what ifs" check out www.battlegoat.com.

[ May 18, 2003, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[xwormwood]

"Tanks against farmers"

Can't believe that i am the only person here who is anoyed by these statements!?!

rambo, let me help you: your story happend in Vietnam, not in WW2-Europe.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

Agreed, Texas would not be my choice for an ideal entry state! Thanks for the link, I've just signed up for a subscription. Probably it was the bleating goat that sold me on it.

xwormwood

You make great contributions to these posts, why would you want to quibble over scattered remarks? Lots of odd statements get under my skin but I've found it's best usually to ignore them and respond only to issues. The chances of changing someone's opinion is next to zero and all of a sudden there's a dispute and the Topic becomes locked. I've got plenty of those things in the General Wasteland Forum because in my younger and more foolish days I argued with practically everyone. Now I pop a tranquillizer and say things "Oh, that's nice -- and that's nice, too." and in addition to my blood pressure going down I find I'm much happier.

[ May 18, 2003, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[xwormwood]

Sorry JerseyJohn, you are right, as always.

[JerseyJohn]

Glad to have been of service my friend. I'll have to remember to take my own advice from now on.

[ May 18, 2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

The Germans couldn't get to Britian. I doubt they'd of got to the US. The US would've occuppied any nation that was seen a potential landing point and was the most powerful nation on the American continent of course. If we fully mobilized it would be a pain the arse. Supply line 3 thousand miles away from Europe. It would be a Russia undertaking against a even more determined enemy. Remeber the last two invasions of the US...The Brits never tried again

[Shaka of Carthage]

I figured I'd do some quick calcs to help me calm down from JerseyJohn getting me all worked up talking about the US Defense budget.

North Atlantic Map size

There are alot of ways you can figure it, but I used this. Based on our current 50 mile hex.

Souther tip of Florida to Gibralter would be about 75 hexes. Ireland to Brunswick would be about 45 hexes. Current SC map is about 37 by 62 hexes.

Just as a rough estimate, the entire map area we have now would not cover the North Atlantic. Then there is the request to include Iceland, expand the area in North Africa (just a few hex rows there) and a few hex rows north of Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. But lets just be conservative and say we want the current map to be about twice (2X) the size, with the additional covering 95% of the North Atlantic.

Then there is the work that needs to be done on the naval aspect of the combat system.

How many of you are interested enough in the naval side to want that? I ask because maybe the effort would not be worth it. And if not, maybe there is a better way for us to do the same thing.

Comments?

[ May 18, 2003, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Sorry about getting you worked up, if it's any consolation the result was a masterpiece.

We've gone through the physical map path already and it never seems to work out. Personally I don't think a global approach is feasible in this game system. Much of the requisite scrolling would have be done through inactive regions twice the size of our current playing area, which could be come very tedious very quickly.

I've always felt it was a mistake to include North America at all on the game map. The United States and Canada should be off-board factors beyond Axis invasion.

The presense of either country is by necessity an abstraction. I'd prefer the abstraction of Iceland in the Northwest just a little farther east than it's actual location, to simulate the importance it would have had in German hands. The Azores and Canary Islands would be similarly welcomed. All of them would need to be port cities in order to influence the game.

Unfortunately much of this is meaningless as the there is no reliable way to simulate the Battle of the Atlantic. U-boats cannot be entered into the theater except via the Bay of Biscay; running the Channel is suicide. As a matter of fact, German naval units can only reach the Atlantic from the Baltic under two conditions, either the British Fleet is entirely destroyed or it has been sent to the Mediteranean. What it amounts to is you don't have a real chance of defeating the UK with U-boats unless you've already somehow gotten rid of the Royal Navy. Not very likely.

So, my fine friend, let's explore some alternate ideas such as off map action that won't involve expanding our current playing board. I've become accustomed to it, as has everyone else.

I'd still like to see a deeper North Africa and Scandinavia, I can live with what we've got if necessary. And in SC2 I hope it won't be necessary to do so.

[ May 18, 2003, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

Thanks for the comment. SC is much cheaper than me seeing a therapist.

I still want to hear other peoples comments, but let me expand a little on some ideas.

Since we are not going to pursue the North Atlantic hex map, we are going to have "boxes". Our current map should have representative areas on it for Greenland, Iceland, and other relevant strategic areas.

I don't remember my longitude or latitude definitions, so lets just call them the east-west and north-south lines. Each box would be roughly 60 degrees going east west and roughly 20 degrees going north south.

We have three (3) different boxes.

Arctic North Atlantic 40 to 60 N by 0 to 60 EW.

North Atlantic 40 to 60 N by 0 to 60 EW.

South North Atlantic 20 to 40 by 0 to 60 EW.

If you look at a map with the longitude/latitudes its easier to see.

You can get from the Artic box to the North Box. And from the North Box to the South Box.

Now, remember the Suez "arrows"? And the Baltic sea "arrows" for the subs?

Baltic Sea should have a "arrow" for entry into the Arctic box for the Axis. As was discussed there whatever those conditions are for axis ships sneaking into to Arctic box depending on who controls Norway and the weather. Allies should have a "arrow" into the Arctic box in the North Sea and one North of Ireland.

"Arrow" west of Ireland and "arrow" west of the Northern most tip of Spain would be entry points into the North Atlantic box.

"Arrow" west of Gibralter would be the entry point into the South North Atlantic box.

Equivalent entry "arrows" on the US, Canadain sides for entry into the relevant boxes.

Easy right?

PS... don't forget that the boxes are large enough that you can add the land hexes representing South America, French Martinque, Plymouth, Vigo, etc discussed earlier.

And the existing map can now be expanded to include a larger North Africa, a bigger Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc.

[ May 19, 2003, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

How the Boxes are used

Merchant routes would be within the relevant boxes.

Axis sub would have to enter the Baltic arrow to get into the Arctic Box. Then from that Box it could travel into the North Atlantic Box. Same concept for any other type of allied or axis ships using arrows to enter boxes.

Axis subs in a box would hunt down merchant ships. Allies could counter by deploying ASW ships. Either these are the existing ships and/or we need to add a destroyer counter. Someone else could work the numbers out, but the concept would be that each ASW asset gives you a certain % chance of finding a sub. Then there is the combat. And then we get the results at the end or beginning of each turn.

From what I remember, Axis captial ships could be used as "surface raiders". I guess that would mean that if they entered the box, they would hunt merchant ships as well. This is the part where you naval experts need to provide the rest. Can those Axis capital ships enter a box not as a surface raider? Does that mean they then would be searching for a fight with Allied capital ships?

Let me mention this while I think about it. Iceland, Greenland, could get a Air or Bomber unit. Once it reached a certain range (ie you must invest in Long Range tech), those units would increase your chance of finding Axis subs. I don't know if that is true for something based in Canada as well.

The other thing I don't know about is supply. If an Axis sub entered the Baltic arrow... how many turns before it gets into the Arctic box? How long should it stay in the Arctic box? And how where these subs or any capital ships supplied? Or does the existing supply concept work for naval ships?

Anyway, that is my basic idea. The rest of you can work the details out.

PS... forget the destroyer unit. Lets call it a ASW unit. Now, you can have a ASW tech that not only covers the better sonar, radar, whatever, but it also covers the ASW unit having merchant and escort carriers.

[ May 19, 2003, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Liam]

With the expansion on an Atlantic Convoy system Iceland as a base would be nice. Added hexes would give more room for u-boats to hide and convoys to transport in. It would be a sideline war of itself, historically accurate.

[Panzer39]

If for some reason we are not able to get more hexes in SC2, would it be possible to cut the Sea Hexes in half (one hex sliced down the center to become two? It would be an abstract way to increase the size of the ocean.

[Edwin P.]

Most interesting ideas,

Shaka, I like your idea for sea zones and for ASW tech.

The only change I would make is to create more sea zones to add more strategy to naval warfare - ie North Atlantic East/West/Middle. Thus an Axis fleet could move from the Artic Zone to any one of three North Atlantic Zones or back to the Baltic Sea box. The Allied player would have to decide where to send his ASW resources. Ideally I would like to see the Atlantic broken into 14 Zones - Artic (to/from Baltic), North Atlantic (3 zones), North Mid Atlantic (3 zones), South Mid Atlantic (3 zones) South Atlantic (3 zones), and Transit to the Suez.

As for cutting the ocean hexes in half, why not increase the movement point cost for deep sea hexes so that they would represent wider distances. You would have 2 type of ocean hexes: Ocean and Deep Ocean. This would be easier to program and it would only involve creating a new hex type: Deep Sea. Such a change would delay the arrival of US reinforcements in Europe, which could be critical in the event of a Sea Lion or to reinorce an invasion of France.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Liam

Exactly. Having sea zones would make the North Atlantic naval war a "sideline". Would make it necessary to employ the naval ships in the various zones to counter the German subs. Otherwise, the MPP's of UK would be reduced (hopefully using the MPP+ concept ). No longer would we be tempted to use the ships as part of the land war because of the German sub threat. And we still have our current naval hex movement and combats in the Med, Baltic, North Sea.

Panzer39

Even making a "deep ocean" hex that would be 100 miles across, still would not give us the correct number of hexes for the North Atlantic.

By implementing sea zones, you could remove from the current map roughly 9 columns of hexes. Need to add 5 columns back in (areas for US, Canada, Iceland, Greenland, South America, etc), leaving us with roughly 150 "free" hexes. That would give me the ability to "stretch" the current SC map by about three (3) rows.

Edwin P

Hmmm... so a box dimension would be roughly 20 degrees North/South and 20 degrees East/West. That would make 12 boxes plus 1 more to cover the Norwegian sea. While two or three of those boxes are land masses (Canada and Greenland) you have now just opened up the strategic possiblites. Brainfart... I just figured out how to show you the map I am looking at. North Atlantic "Boxes"

There are French colonial sites in West Africa. Those could be included as well. British would have to send forces not only to Egypt, but West Africa, East Africa, etc. Lot more strategic options now.

Good idea Edwin.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Global SC

Again, depends on how you want to view your map, but if we stick to a 50 mile hex, you are talking over 60,000 hexes. Thats sixty thousand!

Thats a large number of hexes that no one is gonna be playing over. Then again, to prevent them from being wasted hexes you might as well make all the nations of the world be eligible. And what you have just created in SC Global is basically a HOI "lite".

That to me is another project way outside of what we should expect in the near future. And if there was a global SC, we should be thinking in different terms. More like allowing this to be some sort of multi-player online game where you can enter your turn each day and at the end of the day the computer processes the turns. Then you look at the global map, view your messages, and do it all over again the next day. This way, people from all over the world could play without you having to be online.

Anyway, just a thought.