Opening an old wound (Hubert, the old thorn in your side has returned!)

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Ok, now that SC2 is on the drawing boards i have 1 question for you. You prbably already know what it is.

Hubert, will there be a Winter War in SC2?

Ill even beta test it for you Im learning how to program AI and compile information.

Not to mention, u guys will need an AAR writer.

(Your humble consumer)

CvM

[ December 08, 2002, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Carl Von Mannerheim ]

[Kuniworth]

I see this as a part of a deeper diplomatic model. The russians could for example press territorial demands on Finland but at the cost of alienating the nation(more likely to join axis).

The same could be used for simulating Bessarabia and Romania.

[Kuniworth]

It would be nice if the game could begin in 1936 with some diplomatic turns before the war starts in 1949. You know the spanish civil war, anschluss, annexation of Czeckoslovakia and so on...

[Kuniworth]

1939 not 1949 ofcourse

[JerseyJohn]

That was the only aspect of HICOM I really liked, that you didn't even have to go to war if you chose to do things diplomatically -- but from there the rest of the game was substandard.

1936 Would be a great starting point. By 1938 Germany could decide if, after Munich it wants to deal with the Danzig Corridor question instead of absorbing Prague, driving Britain and France to ally themselves with Poland.

In the late 30's Poland saw herself as the chief Balkan/Baltic nation and wanted the others to rally behind her, but none of them trusted her. Ironically they felt she was too friendly with Germany!

It would be interesting to start early enough to allow Germany to follow a "West First" strategy; forming alliances with Poland and Hungary while absorbing Austria and the Sudatenland then applying pressure to Denmark and the Low Countries while having her eastern borders secured by her allies. Presumably there would not be an understanding between Germany and Russia and the Baltic countries and Finland might see Germany as their protector.

That sort of game should have diplomatic activity on both sides. There would be two modes for each nation: diplomatic and at war .

I doubt we'll see it but it would be great if we did.

Originally posted by Carl von Mannerheim: Hubert, will there be a Winter War in SC2?

In the two games I played yesterday using Bill's Mod (which I think would be consistant with the 1.06 patch indicators) neither the Russo-Finnish borders nor the position of it's troops budged; they were unchanged when Finland entered after the start of Barbarossa. Is there some way of solving Finlands supply problems -- perhaps a Finnish HQ unit behind the front lines?

[ December 08, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Oh, im not pushing for a diplomatic engine. I just want to see active neutrals. I mean, the Spanish Civil War and the Winter War were part of World War 2 in Europe, it would be a shame not to include them.

CvM

[pzgndr]

A3R handled this pretty well. Russia had choices regarding Eastern Poland, Baltic States, Finnish border hexes, and Bessarabia. There should be political pros and cons associated with all these decisions. Hopefully SC2 will have Italy, Russia and US as active neutrals so players can perform various pre-war actions like this. But if not, politics and research activities might still be handled for them separately. Why couldn't the Allied player just make his own declarations of war against Baltic States or make research decisions for USSR prior to entry? That might work.

[Vodka]

Yes, 1936 Start date please.

It will make the game more challanging and will give more game play variances.

[Yohan]

World in Flames (WiF) had a precursor game developed called "Days of Decision (DoD) that started in 1936 and had a well thought out model for alternative starts and actual war decs based on actions like Austria, reoccupying the Rhineland etc.

The first version of DoD was great. It allowed for some very interesting starts. ADG then did a 2nd version that most people I know found unplayable due to overly complex design.

I think something along those lines would be great.

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

It would be nice if the game could begin in 1936 with some diplomatic turns before the war starts in 1949. You know the spanish civil war, anschluss, annexation of Czeckoslovakia and so on...

I vote for this possibilities either

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Again, i dont think an advanced diplomacy system is needed, but minor conflicts are.

Spanish Civil War

Russo-Finnish Winter War

Any other minor conflicts im missing?

CvM

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

{...] to ally themselves with Poland.

Germany would no way have done this. Like in the post-world war one-so-called-democracy in Germany the chief of staff (Wasnt that General von Seeckt) called it:

The existence of Poland is in no way compatibly with the interests of the german Reich

[JerseyJohn]

JayJay_H

Good thread and great photo of the old gentleman (if his hands weren't showing you'd be checking your pockets).

I'm glad it's being brought out that a lot of these diplomatic dealings predate Hitler and the Nazis in European politics.

Poland

After a border war in the early '20s, Poland and Germany conducted many talks, mainly involving mutual defence against Bolshevism.

In the early 30's Poland saw itself as the center of a neutral coalition that would serve to keep Germany and Russia permanently seperated from one another.

When it was convenient for her to do so, Germany behaved in a friendly manner with the Poles. As late as the Chech' division, German helped divide the Chech spoils with Hungary (pretending to protect the Chechs from the Hungarians!) and Poland -- and that was while they were planning to invade the place (Poland)!

Certainly German cooperation with Poland is no more absurd than German cooperation with Russia. By the late '30s Germany wasn't taking it's diplomatic commitments very literally, when an arrangement no longer suited the situation it was immediately broken. A Polish alliance would have had no more validity than the TEN year nonaggression pact signed with Russia in 1939.

Most of these Polish/German antagonisms go back to Germany's victory over Russia and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed in 1918, in which the Bolsheviks ceeded much of European Russia (including ALL of Poland) and the Eukraine to Imperial Germany. Had the Kaiser's government accepted the Anglo/French peace propossal they would have held all those territories.

Prussian aristocrats like von Seekt never accepted the fact that they'd been cheated of the conquered East. The Ukraine and three Baltic countries would have been German protectorates while Poland was absorbed as a province. To add insult to injury, the Versailles genius's cut the Danzig Corridor through Germany and gave it to Poland, putting the traditionally German port of Danzig itself under League of Nations control (an all but pointless finesse).

It wasn't till the nazis came to power that the Polish issue took on racial overtones.

I'm not saying the Nazis would have suddenly come to love them; I'm saying they would have been perfectly willing to use them, then invade them later, as they did with the Soviets.

But first -- the nazis also had the hots for other small countries, such as Holland et al, which Hitler said only existed according to the whims of their powerful neighbors.

[ December 08, 2002, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

I'm glad it's being brought out that a lot of these diplomatic dealings predate Hitler and the Nazis in European politics.

[...]

Most of these Polish/German antagonisms go back to Germany's victory over Russia and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed in 1918, in which the Bolsheviks ceeded much of European Russia (including ALL of Poland) and the Eukraine to Imperial Germany. Had the Kaiser's government accepted the Anglo/French peace propossal they would have held all those territories.

Prussian aristocrats like von Seekt never accepted the fact that they'd been cheated of the conquered East. The Ukraine and three Baltic countries would have been German protectorates while Poland was absorbed as a province. To add insult to injury, the Versailles genius's cut the Danzig Corridor through Germany and gave it to Poland, putting the traditionally German port of Danzig itself under League of Nations control (an all but pointless finesse).

It wasn't till the nazis came to power that the Polish issue took on racial overtones.

I'm not saying the Nazis would have suddenly come to love them; I'm saying they would have been perfectly willing to use them, then invade them later, as they did with the Soviets.

But first -- the nazis also had the hots for other small countries, such as Holland et al, which Hitler said only existed according to the whims of their powerful neighbors.

overwhelmed by your massive historical knowledge, didnt think these subjects (somehow out of time but still determining the socieyties of our days)would still be enlightened so much by any wargamer at all. Great to see JerseyJohn has qualified informations on these questions.

[ December 08, 2002, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: JayJay_H ]

[JerseyJohn]

JayJay_H

You're swelling my head, but thanks for the good word and also for enlightening me on the German Flying Saucer Program! -- as well as the numerous other aspects of the war and it's related issues that you've made very interesting and informative postings on. We all learn from each other.

[ December 09, 2002, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Actually in most of the war-games I have played, the Winter War is extremely boring.

For instance TSR/SPI's World War II ETO game the russians attack, clear out the territory and boom it's done. Should the finns prove to be stubborn you just add more and more until they collapse. If the Soviets don't attack they don't get the first winter bonus against the the Germans.

Unless germany goes to war over it and they won't because it occurs in 1939/1940, it will always end the same. No matter how well the Finns fight the soviets will squish them. Finland could not compete with the soviets resources or numbers.

I'm sure it's been discussed before but the game mechanics for SC don't seem to support having a winter war. You would have to make the Soviet Union active, fight the war and then it would go inactive again until it was time to fight germany. Thier war would have to be separate of the rest of the game. Finland not joining the Axis and USSR not joining the Allies.

Sure it could be done but that may be more than they wish to invest in something that will only result in a border change.

You would probably be better off asking for a regimental level game of the Winter War. I can't remember how the old Europa board game handled it but I sure that is something you may wanna check out.

Of course if you are anywhere near Indiana on Feb 8th 2003, come to Rensselear for the Winter War reenactment. We can always use more Finns to shoot at and remind that no matter how well they fought, who won the war.

-dave

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Konstatin V. Kotlenikov:

Actually in most of the war-games I have played, the Winter War is extremely boring.

Then you haven't play WiF. I have found that game to model the winter war exceptionally well, to include the politics involved (... Germany being the broker for peace).

I would like to see the Winter War modeled in SC2, and do believe it could be done in such a way as to allow for some military maneuvers AND German intervention.

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

What game is WiF?

For the most part I limit Winter War to tactical games. Computer wise I enjoy East Front. Ski battalions are fun. Board wise, Squad Leader was great, especially with the unique traits of Finnish units (differant leaders, self rally).

Strategicly I find it boring. Why would germany risk a war with the soviet union when France and Britian were looming in the West?

Up until their dismal performance in the Winter War the Red Army was feared. It's poor performance was one of the contributing factors that led Hitler to invade and thus seal the fate of the 3rd Reich.

Of course a lesson was learned; "Don't purge your officer corps on the eve of a war." Better wait until after.

-dave

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Konstatin V. Kotelnikov:

What game is WiF?

World in Flames. A board-game published by Australian Design Group. Costs about 100 bucks (... it may even be more by now), and takes about as much time to set up as it does to play a complete game. :eek:

Well worth the effort, however.

Recently Bill Macon suggested that the non-belligerents such as Russia and Italy could be played before actual entry into the War. Very good idea, and this would allow gamers to establish some of the game parameters.

At this strategic level, the Winter War would necessarily be small and probably inconclusive, and maybe it is not worth all the effort. Although, it could be handled abstractly with some kind of game variants.

Nonetheless, I would yet favor it's inclusion, as it was important, at least to the Finns and the Russians.

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Thanks, I hadn't heard of that one. I grew playing the classic Avalon Hill and TSR/SPI games. Of course some Yaquinto and Victory games thrown in for good measure. Europa was about as big a game as I played growing up, unfortunately I didn't have the cash to buy all the different packages for it and just stayed with the Eastern Front.

For those not familiar with it the Europa system was a divisonal/regimental board game made up of smaller games. You could link all the games together to play the entire war in Europe at a divisional level. A very large system indeed.

Yeah, it would be great to be able to control the major powers before then enter into the fray. Especially with purchasing and research. Imagine what June 22, 1941 would be like if Germany wasn't suprised by our beloved little T-34, but JS-II's instead. Or maybe the U.S. had built a large atlantic carrier fleet before it's entry.

That's what is great about SC, it allows you to do all the "what ifs" that you always wanted to try. If only Life allowed more time to play it. LOL

-dave

[JerseyJohn]

Konstatin V. Kotelnikov --

". . .. Why would germany risk a war with the soviet union when France and Britian were looming in the West?"

Finland was Germany's only supplier of nickel. Hitler found it very amusing that the allies didn't go all out to seize it and cripple Germany's war production!

Essentially, Germany had the same interest in Finland that it had in Romania.

[ December 09, 2002, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Very True Jerseyjohn and Comrade Stalin made sure a good chunk of Nickel production became soviet as terms of the winter war.

In the winter of 1939-1940 would Germany have risked a war with the Soviet Union over finland with the French and British undefeated? It would of been foolish and that's why they didn't.

Of course Hitler never did anything foolish now, did he?

-dave

[JerseyJohn]

Konstatin V. Kotelnikov --

"Of course Hitler never did anything foolish now, did he?"

Foolish, nah -- NUTs , well . . .!

[ December 09, 2002, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Originally posted by Konstatin V. Kotelnikov:

Very True Jerseyjohn and Comrade Stalin made sure a good chunk of Nickel production became soviet as terms of the winter war.

In the winter of 1939-1940 would Germany have risked a war with the Soviet Union over finland with the French and British undefeated? It would of been foolish and that's why they didn't.

-dave

No, it would more likely that the UK and France would go to war with the USSR for Finland. I bet even der Feuhrer wouldve seen the wisdom in allying himself with the Allies, or, even staying 'Neutral' or would he attack an Undermanned France?

I guess the next campaign editor will have to deal with that.

CvM

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Bump