Is SC a game or historical simulation?

[Tigleth Pilisar]

I've become somewhat confused over what SC really is. :confused: This comes from some interesting gameplay against human opponents. And it seems many threads attempt to suggest game modifications to better reflect the units/environment to make things operate closer to history.

Not being a historian, WWII seems to me ultimately to be about the spread of fascism. Sure there were other things involved that led to war, but lets just simplify. The Axis wanted to grow (expand, conquer, dominate, gain political influence, reinflate their economy, reduce unemployment from 25%, whatever you want to say) and the Allies wanted to keep borders as the originally were (or stop the axis, defend, topple the fascist governments, free attacked countries ... all the same idea).

The game is not like that - or at least against human opponents. From a game perspective it makes perfect sense for the allies to attack Iraq or Portugal or Belgium or any and all neutrals. Why not? Its just math. You need the MPPs to defeat the Axis. And I suppose it provides more variables to the game.

But allied invasions of neutrals are not in the spirit of what WWII was about. There was a clear attacker (axis) and defender (allies). To my knowledge, the allies did not declare war on one neutral in WWII.

I think there are these two fundamental problems with the game:

1) The allies don't have enough long-term production to win the game without support of additional MPPs from neutrals, at least against a half-good axis player.

2) Many human allied players throw "everything they have got" at the Germans right out of the gate in super aggressive play. This often causes an inexperienced Axis player to be shut down out of the gate, or a foregone conclusion that the Axis player will win because the Allied player burns down so many of his resources in being aggressive early. Personally, I don't think this win fast or not at all strategy is much fun.

3) There is no longer any political or any other kind of penalty for an allied player attacking a neutral after the US and Russia have entered the war.

I think a stand needs to be taken on whether SC is a war game or a WWII game. Personally, I'd love it either way. But if it is just a war game engine, make a random map generator, with random neutrals and it is a different game every time! I love the game fundamentals and would buy this game engine in random worlds in a second.

If on the other hand it is a WWII game, there has to be far greater dissuasion for the allied player to attack neutrals. Its just not true to WWII. Of course, attacking neutrals as the allies should be permitted, but as it stands, it is oddly required.

Perhaps George W Bush has been playing SC too much and figures Iraqi MPPs look good right now because Hubert didn't put enough allied penalty on it. (only in humour, and no disrespect to the lives currently at risk)

[Liam]

There is more involved than just money. If someone conquors Britian, I usually would say the game is over depending on how bad. Historically it's accurate to that degree. Similarly, if you should conquor the USSR, I'd say there's little chance of the Western Allies Winning... Which we came VERY close to.

Is it a game of economics, well, was WW2? The US/Britian/Russia outproduced/had greater manpower and better strategy ultimately to win. All those are key factors<accept manpower> That's fairly unlimited in this game...

The War was about personal Ambition. Mousillini just hoped on the bandwagon as did all the Minors.. Japan and Germany were the two Warm Bodies.

The War was impossible for these two to win on a grand stragetic scale without extremely good planning. Which they never had.. The Japs stopped short of delivering a Death Blow to the USA. Who had 28<?> times the economy of Imperial Japan. A wild figure like that anyways...

Perhaps with 3 years of Pacific Expansion and Hitler's continued "luck," would the War have gone to the Axis...They did come out with Some heavy Blitz style strategy. Both sides, the Japs ran way past supply on many Islands and Pearl was a bold move on their part<not quite the deliverance they needed, they needed the carriers>

Though in 1941 with the Winter setting on, the War was finally in Question. With the Death of the 6th Army the Russians had won more than a strategic victory. A true morale victory<we can beat these guys> We're 3 times their #s. We're fighting for our home<ultimately for our own lives> We we will prevail. The Utterances of Winston Churchill the conservative yet very able FDR...The psycho Stalin just proved too much for two unstable Men like Tojo and Hitler to overcome...

Hitler was afterall a poor General. He never made higher than the Rank of Corporal

Hitler had what 150 German Units vs 400+ Russians? Not counting a second front that should've earlier!

Really what you see is Axis early successes then a downward spiral in the War... They either grab Moscow or London in one big Deathly move Or lose...<that or had been a bit better Politicians and sued for peace with Stalin>

[JerseyJohn]

Tigleth Pilisar

You've dropped in the middle of an issue we've been tugging at for months. I won't attempt to bring you up to date. Instead I'll provide links to some of the past Forums that have dealt with this issue.

If you read through them a lot of your questions on this subject in regard to the game will be answered. Glad to see you think along these lines. Some of us are satisfied with it as a game and some of us want it to lean at least a little bit in the direction of historical responsibility. simulation. Apparently you lean toward the simulation side; those of us who'd like the game to have a credible degree of historical semblence.

Among the issues discussed in this first link are the roles of countries like Ireland, Portugal and Iraq in an economic relationship with Britain. And the relation of countries like Sweden, Spain, and Switzerland to the Germans.

link to the Neutrals as Economic Factors Forum

This one discusses the random invasion of neutrals by both sides. i.e. UK invading nations that are sympathetic to them and Germany doing the same with their own potential allies.

link to Proposed Diplomatic Forum

Much of this material is examined in other forums but these are the most focused.

[ March 08, 2003, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[gazza_35]

Its a game based on a period of events many years ago. Make it too complicated and people wont play it. I like it nice and simple but a few improvements can be made. Who wants to play an historical game ayway. We all know what happened!!

[xwormwood]

Tigleth Pilisar

I wonder what would have happened if the nazis would have thrown away their unbelievable mad jew-hate. If all these people would have been integrated in their war machine (many many highly educated, Einstein & Co. would have probably stayed in germany...), what would have happend? Maybe a european union like nowaday under a strong german leaderhip? First the whole manpower what would have been spared for important things, than the spared railtransports used for a better industrial system und supply duties.

And if they also would have ignored this stupid "herrenmensch"-religion the USSR would have ended in 1942 (no partisans and and and)

But as you quoted: Hitler and most of his bloodhounds were simply ignorant, mad maniacs, filled with hatred and foolish ideas. Their "luck" were the german people after the outcome and "peace"-treaty of WW1, the newly installed radiostations (propaganda at its finest) and weak democrats all over the world (US: "Roosevelt keeps us out of the war", UK & France: "Peace for our time"). Oh yes, before i forget it: SC is not a historic game. If the french army would have marched in 1939 the 3rd Reich would have fallen instantly, because their ammounition reserve was so small, that it just was enough for poland, but never enough for a 2-front war. And the german general staff planned a coup in case of a french attack, which would have been probably accepted by the the germans.

But the free world favored the "dying of poland? No thanks!"-spirit which brought us as well 50 million dead people after 6 long years of war.In SC it is in september 1939 pure suicide to attack germany over the rhine. The french got hammered to dust. But even controlling the rhine area would have brought Hitler surely in BIG troubles ...

[ March 08, 2003, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[santabear]

Not wanting to reopen old cans of worms...Again from a newbie viewpoint. The GAME of Strategic Command is all about MPPs (economics). It's not even about accumulating MPPs for yourself (they come almost automatically), but really it's about denying them/taking them away from the opposition. Whether this is 'true' to WWII depends on your historical view to a certain extent. I think the real-world MPPs (US, USSR, Britain, etc.) were much more fixed than the game represents them to be; even as the USSR was getting trashed in 41-42, they moved everything east and still produced enough stuff to win at Stalingrad before Lend-lease really kicked in.

[xwormwood]

santabear: yes, the won stalingrad, but just because the "grofaz" (groesster Feldherr aller Zeiten = greatest military commander of all times). If Hitler wouldn't have splitted his army again and again in his try to get everything instantly with very limited armed forces the Soviets wouldn't have been able to win this big point. If Hitler wouldn't have wanted to push the soviets out of Kursk there wouldn't have been the destruction of the east fron in 1943 - 1944 because germany would have had reserves. After all, germany without Hitler would have been MUCH more effective (but than it wouldn't have launched the war at all...).

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I say "game" and I attach zero negativity to that statement.

If it was to simulate WW2 with the correct attitude, the Allies would suffer exceedingly high penalties for attacking Nuetrals.

This is just one of those tough bananas areas.

It is also possible to say, tough bananas to the Axis player that wants to have across the board freedom to use his early war edge, and then cram unrealistic sums of power units down the Allies throats.

The German war machine stood up incredibly well against the Allied bombing campaign. But the fact remains, the Germans pursued the war with an attitude "it will be over soon, we don't need that".

They didn't enter WW2 in 39 on a full war production footing, and they spent most of the war thinking there was no point.

With both of these things accounted for, the Allies have to play the guys with the white hat, and the Axis have to accept being constrained by realistic limited forcepool options.

I think done well they would balance each other out. One side the allies, can't get access to unlimited funds, and the other side, the Axis, knows there is a limit to what a seemingly superior economic situation can provide.

The Germans were not at all constrained by how nasty they behaved. And the Allies produced better and faster and more long reaching war production in the end.

But sometimes you have to just let a game be a game.

[ March 08, 2003, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

[disorder]

LES THE SARGE 9-1B i mostly agree. it is just a game. set up along historical guidelines as well as the game mechanism will allow.

as for the neutrals, i too was shocked the first time france attacked the low countries.

but i remembered reading abt. operation torch and how patton had 3 replies ready for eisenhower depending on the french being allies, neutral, or enemies. the allies were going to invade no matter what the consequences. it needed to be.

neutrals were not all that we assume they were, and many openly opposed or aided one side or the other. the u.s. "neutrality" prior to 12-7-41 is the first to come to mind.

should the allies be under the constraints of the "good" decisions which meant not violating neutrality, and receive penalties for this? not any more than the germans should be penalized for not attacking the low countries early in the war.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Well to further this matter.

I have read how the Allies planned to move into the low countries in a pre emptive deployment. I think this was a with or without their permission strategy.

Although it made sound sense, given the Allies knew that the Germans would have to come through that neck of the woods to some extent.

The trouble is when as the Allies, the decision is for "opportunistic" choices that were far beyond the political scene of the time.

Therefore, taking out Portugal can't be seen in the same light (assuming we are attempting to preserve historicity).

There was very real friction between the then Allies though, and the questionable enthusiasm of the then Vichy government. The Vichy government was made as a result of the decision being somewhat forced on the French though.

History would never have heard of Vichy France, if the Germans had not attacked France in the first place.

Hitler might well have fortified the heck out of the Rhine, and then assumed the western Allies would just never have sufficient interest to interfere with an early assault on Russia in 1940.

History might have been about Hitler's conquest of Russia in 1940 instead.

This illustrates the hassle of history vs game.

The moment the game becomes about a "system", and not a "simulation", you throw open the doors to confusing conditions that destroy the feel of the game being about WW2 historically.

[Liam]

I don't think the Allies would've attacked right off, they were mobilizing in 1940. The Russians had a lot of work to do also, and would've been a prime target in 1940<though Hitler was not the only one who worried about a repeat of the previously 2 front War that cost Germany almost Everything>

Germany put together quite a bit of plunder from France and confidence. You could say that the Suez & Battle of Britian were a waste of good German Resources...unless she intended to take Britian all the way, she should've just focused in the proper direction. Without a declaration of War against the United States, there would have been a poor Casa Bellus against the Germans in 1941-42 for the USA... All the extra resources put into defending the West <including the Atlantic Wall> that was even by todays standards a MASSIVE undertaking... Could've been put towards the Russians a Quick ditch attempt to take the three Major cities of Russia within 6 month period, 1941...starting earlier than June...

The Jews were not the only people persecuted by Nazis either. Gypsies, many Slavic people, homosexuals, anti-war protestors<defiant party members>, and handicapped people were also sent to Concentration Camps...Ironically the Germans were an Evil Regime that decided their fate faster than History was going to deal it to them. After Fall of France, without a Barborossa, Germany focused on technology and defense may have made it impossible for an invasion of their country for MANY years...

Closer to any reality of a Third Reich that lasted 11 years...

[John DiFool]

The question for me is: how much control do you

give the players? If you force the Germans to

make do with the halfhearted total war mobilization

they embarked on before Speer came along (as

Sarge mentioned), is this fair? Or should you

let the German player have a choice in the matter?

But if he does decide to fully mobilize, and

there aren't any significant penalties for doing

so (political or economic-should there be?), will

that unbalance the game?

Russian pre-war setup, which is automatic-same

thing. Any sane Russian player wouldn't use the

current setup in a million years, but instead have

a thin line of corps up front, those armies

garrisoned in cities, and the tank and air units

held far back in reserve. But the Russians pre-

Barbarossa made some almost-fatal assumptions

about how the Germans would fight, and put most

of their units far forward. Should that be a

player choice, or an automatic thing? And again,

would this make Barbarossa much harder for the

Germans? [will have to try this alternate setup

for the '41 scenario sometime...]

These are examples of some of the hard choices

Hubert will be faced with as he designs SC2. How

much control-total, or limited? Are you as the

player the supreme dictator, with complete

control of every aspect of war (which nobody not

even Hitler actually had-not that he didn't try)?

Or should the game simulate the actual roles of

the C in Cs of each country, with more limited

roles (and underlings who covertly or overtly

futz up your desires, whether deliberately or by

sheer incompetence)?

I remember the Sim Can products of the 80's gave

you extremely limited command & control, along

with LOTS of FoW. I personally don't want to see

that level of "realism"-but aside from that

extreme, I'll leave it to the game designer to

make his final choice in the matter.

JD

[Tigleth Pilisar]

Thank you all for your well thought out responses, and for links to prior discussions.

Liam: Interesting points. Specifically I liked how you spoke of "morale". Is history simply a function of environment (terrain, trade, tools, etc) or how much is it influenced by truly great minds and motivators (Churchill, or early on, the stir Hitler could make)? For example, how much did Churchill's staunch confidence and resilience inpire his people, compared to if say the prior leader (forget his name) and the patience allowing Hitler's earlier aggression (this policy has a name I forget too) continued?

Jersey John: I'll have to read those posts.

gazza_35: I agree with simplicity and playability. I also agree with replaying history having no "fun value". But many, in fact most, WWII games have no involvement with neutrals, whereas it is a very big (perhaps unitended) part of SC by comparison. Name one WWII game on the market where neutrals play such a large role.

xwormwood: An interesting question regarding hate. I think Hitler and his generals were very good strategists at the outset. How could they have fooled so many people and won so many battles early on if not? But ultimately many synonyms for evil are used to discuss the whole fascist attitude. Jealousy, anger, mistrust, pride, ego, hatred. This led, as you pointed out, to the extermination of many great minds. Take even General Rommel, for example. (You might not have thought of this as a great mind) All questions of morality aside, he was a fantastic general. Hitler had him assassinated because he feared Rommel might be "coming after him". Hitler eventually killed most of his best people ("best" defined as serving his purpose the best), and committed unbelievable acts of hatred towards the Jewish people. You ask, "what could have happened if Jews were onside with the war"? Given the underlying reasons for the war, the Jewish people never would have participated (as a people). Even Einstein (truly a Zionist who renouced but respected Judiasm), left Germany even before WWII started to get messy.

santabear: A agree. All wargames are truly about economics (in terms of winning/losing them).

Les the Sarge: No negativity taken for suggesting it is a game. In fact I love the game engine itself (the rules, production, supply, command, etc.). But I do think if you say it is a game, then why not increase replayability by parting with historics to a greater extent? Make unit placement random or geography random for that matter. If you are going to let Allies be (relatively) unpunished for attacking neutrals, then make it a game - I'd still play! Otherwise, if it is a WWII game, neutrals should matter much less than they currently do.

disorder: You vote game as well, but point out allies may have had plans to attack neutrals. Perhaps if they had been more aggressive, war would not have spread as it did. I think whether it is a game, or historical simulation, an attack of neutrals should be allowed. Only the penalty should be greater, and one should actually exist somehow after USSR and US have already come in. WWII was about freedom vs tyrany (from my soapbox anyway). In the game, the liberators can not casually become tyrants themselves (or just go all the way and make the whole thing a game).

John Di Fool: Love your pattern of thinking. More questions than answers - same as me. Yes the game is about tradeoffs. My opinion is to give the player the flexibility to decide as much as possible. Then make the consequences for that decision accurate to history as best you can extrapolate. Your suggestion on the Russian front is fantastic. As a gamer, I'd be in favour of the opponent of the war-declaring player being able to place units. In the case of Russia or neutrals, this might make the game more interesting. Because I would like the game somewhat historically accurate, I would severely penalize a Russian choice that put a line of corps on the front with air fleets in the back. Why would I do that? Because that's not what happened in history. It doesn't reflect the then-current attitude of Russia. I would allow it though, and perhaps it means less MPPs to place. Give the Russians more MPPS the more they conform to history and less if they want a better "game solution" rather than a historic solution.

Yes it makes things more complex, but its easy for a computer to handle.

Thanks again for your input. I love SC's design, playability, strategy and also for the kind of players that play it.

[Liam]

Hey mate

I think they're many X-factors involved to make history what it is..Though definitely leaders, location, the Will of the People..Play a big role.

[xwormwood]

Tigleth Pilisar:

Einstein left because of Hitler and the brown scum who followed him. In WorldWar 1 many many many Jews served in the german army, and it were jewish scientist who invented many improvements for the Kaisers army (even gas as weapon, tragic but true). So i don't see why they should have ignored their fatherlands call in WW2 (let us ignoring for this viewpoint the nazis, let us think it would have been a monarchist germany or the weimar republic).

I disagree at all that Hitler was a good general. There were many highly capable military minds in germany, but Hitler only used them (the time germany won many battles) and laterly ignored their opinion, only accepting a general staff of admirer and yes-sayer (Keitel p.e.), what ended (fortunatly) in the utter and complete destruction of fascist germany.

Rommel wasn't killed, he was "invited" to commit suicide. Reason for this "invitation" was Rommels knowledge about the attemp to kill Hitler (10th July 1944). Rommel didn't participated in the coup, but showed his will to serve the new government. He commited suicide to protect his family, but again: what would have happened if Rommel WOULD have participated in the coup? Or what would have happened if he had ignored Hitlers will (suicide) and would have been brought before the "Volksgerichtshof"? He was so very popular, what would have been the reaction of the soldiers in the Wehrmacht? What would the german people have said? At least it would have shattered their trust in Hitler alot. Anyway, i can understand Rommels descision, who wouldn't try to protect his family...

http://www.rommel.stw.uni-erlangen.de/wohnanlage/erwin.en.html

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/julyplot.htm

[Shaka of Carthage]

Way too many comments to respond to. So a few I picked out.

Hitler was never a "general", he acted more as a strategist. In the early years, he was very conservative, though his ideas were more radical than the General Staff. He came up with the ideas, the General Staff worked out the plans, tried to tone done what he wanted done and how. No one was more surprised by the success in France than Hitler. He was not ready for the rapid successes, one of the reasons the British were able to get thier men away in Dunkirk. After France, flushed with the success, he figured he knew better than the professionals. Between his belief, the yes men and the fact no one would stand up to him, led to him starting to take over more and more of the decisions that were better left in the hands of the General Staff. That is when the strategical side of the German planning started to fall apart. Instead of three (3) major thrusts into Russia, if he had only had one or two major ones, Russia would have been a different story.

German economy could never go to a full wartime footing because in the early years ('39 to '41) Hitler had to keep the people happy. His political base was not secure enough, and he was concerned about losing the political fight. Also another reason he did not listen to the General Staff, as he felt (rightly so), that alot of the military professionals looked down on him and did not fully support him.

Forgetting about the morality issue and good vs evil, WWII geopolitically amounted to a fight over who dictated to whom in Europe. Britain had it, and the Germans wanted it. Neither were pleased, when out of all nations, the US got it.

That "fight" is still going on today, except the "Eurocentric" players are France and Germany and the "outsiders" are the US and UK.

What is SC? Its whatever the person who plays it veiws it as. Some of us play it as a game, and could care less if it is historically accurate or not. As long as it is playable. Others among us view it as a WWII simulation, and are peeved because certain "realistic" items are not there.

Success wise, its hard to tell. Does anyone, by the way, know the number of units that SC has sold? Because it is marketed in the wargamer "niche", SC has (by intent or accident) met enough of the needs for some of each of those groups to give it a try.

The "extreme" gamers stay around, because as a game between two players, SC is extremly balanced. Read the first 20 pages of this Forum... everyone said the game was titled towards the Axis. Read the last 20 pages of this Forum... everyone is saying the game is titled towards the Allies.

The "extreme" simulators don't, since the nations don't act like they did historically.

Then there are the "wackos", those who spend more hours than is healty working on suggestions or scenarios... just like those alchemists of old, who toiled in there laborotories trying to find how to turn lead into gold. Hmmm... that doesn't sound right.. SC is not lead.. ok... we are trying to turn gold into platinum. Yea, thats it. Gold into platinum!

[ March 08, 2003, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I would greatly prefer that starting positions of units be entirely discretionary.

When a player that has played and played and played the game can know with certainty exactly where each unit will be, you end up with Gambititis.

I think back on A3R and all the setups me and my opponent tried. Some incredibly inspired, and some that were just stupid, but hey ya never know.

Ridid setups have no place in a "game" this far removed from absolute attention to historicity.

[ March 08, 2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

[KDG]

Tigleth touched on a good point about neutrals.

When you attack a neutral, war readiness go up or down accordingly.

After all sides are in, attacking neutrals should have some type of penalty, just not sure what. Maybe you remove the MPPS obtained after conquering. Maybe another neutral goes to the opposite side when it sees one of its brethran conquered.

[Guest Mike]

The problem is, IMO, that game designers do not put enough effort into making these things BOTH a game and a good historical simulation.

There's no reason at all why it can't be done - CMBO and CMBB are proof of that and there are many figure-game rules that fit teh ill too.

Historical accuracy does not HAVE to mean increased complexity, and nor does simplicity equate to a good game - they are all completely independant parameters!

[disorder]

i know i am a small voice here, but don't go overboard on the "penalty" for attacking neutrals deal. if it is needed to adjust the gameplay against the nazis, fine.

but if it is to promote the "good guy-bad-guy" thing, you should re-think it entirely.

historically neutrality was violated constantly, thoroughly, and fluently, by almost everyone, ally, neutral, and axis.

and for those who believe the allies should be extra penalized for scooping up neutral countries...

les the darge said---"If it was to simulate WW2 with the correct attitude, the Allies would suffer exceedingly high penalties for attacking Nuetrals."

and---"The trouble is when as the Allies, the decision is for "opportunistic" choices that were far beyond the political scene of the time.

Therefore, taking out Portugal can't be seen in the same light (assuming we are attempting to preserve historicity)."

as i mentioned regarding operation torch, take over morocco, kill the bad guys, recruit the good guys, and get about killing the enemy.

when american craft saw argentinians "sham neutrality" refueling u-boats, they didn't worry about "political problems" with neutrality, they blew them to eternity.

the following is a short list of the "good guy" NEUTRAL EXAMPLE. remember,American ships were, by law, to avoid war zones. America was also, by law, not supposed to be supplying any warring party. By sending convoys to Britain, America was violating international laws.

1939

Sept 4 . US cruisers establish patrol off the eastern seaboard to observe and report the movements of foreign men-of-war.

Sept 8 . FDR proclaims limited state of emergency in US with onset of war in Europe.

Sept 13. 40 mothballed WWI destroyers to be reconditioned for "neutrality patrol".

Oct 16. Ranger (CV-4) and San Francisco (CA-38) are mobilized to locate and trail German tanker departed Tampico, Mexico, for Admiral Graf Spee.

Oct 20. USN to use plain language radio reporting of contacts.

Nov 4 . Cash & Carry amendment to Neutrality Act allowed US to supply munitions to Allies.

1940

May 3 . Greenland, a crown colony of Denmark, seeks U.S. protection, so that Danish sovereignty can be maintained during the German occupation of the homeland.

Aug 27. Compulsory military service established (the draft)

Sep 3 . US trades Britain 50 destroyers from US WWI reserve fleet for leases on bases.

Nov 16. Destroyer McCormick (DD-223), on neutrality patrol off Tampico, Mexico, radios attempt of German freighter Orinoco to make for European waters. Destroyer Plunkett (DD-431), by her presence, thwarts German tanker Phrygia's bid for freedom; Phrygia's crew scuttles her.

Dec 8 . Destroyer Sturtevant (DD-240) stands by while British light cruiser HMS Diomede intercepts German freighter Idarwald.

Dec 11. German freighter Rhein, having been tailed by destroyer Simpson (DD-221) and, later, MacLeish (DD-220), is intercepted by Dutch destroyer leader Van Kinsbergen near the Florida Straits, and is scuttled by her own crew to avoid capture. MacLeish and McCormick (DD-223) are present as the German ship's bid to escape fails.

US extends "neutral zone" to 300 miles.

1941

March 1. Support Force Atlantic Fleet established for protection of convoys in North Atlantic.

Mar 11. US votes Lend-Lease Act to aid England.

Mar 17. Coast Guard cutter Cayuga takes South Greenland Survey Expedition, US representatives to locate sites of bases on Greenland's soil.

Mar 27. ABC Conference. Atlantic Fleet is to help the Royal Navy convoy ships across the Atlantic. The agreement inextricably links the U.S. Navy in the effort against Germany.

Mar 30. U S seizes Axis ships in US ports.

April 10. Niblack (DD-424) a new, Benson class destroyer on "Neutrality Patrol", rescuing survivors, depth charged a contact off Iceland.

Apr 10. FDR authorizes the transfer of 10 "Lake"-class Coast Guard cutters to the Royal Navy. Transfers completed Apr 30-May 30.

Apr 18. US declares Greenland and Iceland in its sphere of interest.

Apr 24. Neutrality Patrol is extended east to 26°W, Iceland, and 20°S, almost to Rio.

Apr 26. US to supply French North Africa.

May 22. Part of US Pacific fleet ordered to Atlantic.

May 24. USN PBYs from Newfoundland search for Bismarck in the western Atlantic.

May 26. USN observers flying two separate RAF Catalinas sight Bismarck. British fleet units converge on the lone German capital ship.

May 27. Roosevelt proclaims unlimited state of emergency, including delivery of supplies to Britain, because of Axis battleship incursion of western Atlantic.

May 27. Elements of Pacific fleet move to Atlantic patrol.

May 29. US begins "Neutrality Patrols" in North, Central and Southern Atlantic.

June 12. Naval Reserve called to active duty.

June 14. US freezes German and Italian assets.

June 16. US closed German and Italian consulates.

June 20. FDR addresses Congress concerning the German sinking of U.S. freighter Robin Moor.

Jun 22. Germany invades USSR.

July 4 . US marines under US air cover relieve British troops in Iceland for duty elsewhere.

Aug 1 . US-USSR accord signed.

Aug 8 . US Army and Air units convoyed to Iceland.

Aug 9 . Atlantic Charter, a strategy meeting in Newfoundland between President FDR and Prime Minister WSC. Agree, when the US enters the war, Germany first. US warships to escort British merchant ships between the United States and Iceland.

Sept 4 . Recommissioned destroyer Greer (DD-145), tracked U-652 for several hours. Each attacked the other without injury.

Sep 10 . First Liberator bomber to England.

Sep 11. FDR broadcasts "shoot on sight" order.

Sep 12. Coast Guard cutters seize Norwegian trawler Buskoe in Mackenzie Bay, Greenland, thwarting establishing German radio weather stations.

Oct 5 . Naval Conference between US and British commanders in Sinapore.

Oct 16-Nov 1. DDs escorting Atlantic convoy make depth charge attacks daily after six merchant ships sunk in five hours.

Oct 28. Yorktown (CV-5), New Mexico (BB-41), and other American warships were screening a convoy, a destroyer picked up a submarine contact and dropped depth charges noticing "considerable oil slick".

Nov 1-4. PBYs and PBMs provide air coverage for convoy ON 31.

Nov 4 . Omaha (CL-4), Memphis (CL-13) and 3 DDs search for German surface raider.

Nov 6 . Omaha (CL-4) and Somers (DD-381), en route to Recife, Brazil, returning from the 3,023-mile patrol, captures German blockade runner Odenwald, disguised as U.S. freighter Willmoto, in Atlantic equatorial waters . See reader provided story.

Nov 10. First United States-escorted troop convoy, transporting more than 20,000 British troops, in six USN ships sailed from Halifax for the Far East.

Nov 10-20. DDs attack numerous sound contacts.

Nov 11. Lend Lease for de Gaulle's Free French.

Nov 11. Navy ordered to attack any vessel threatening US shipping.

Nov 13. Amend Neutrality Act: arm US ships, enter war zones.

Nov 17. Archer (BAVG 1) is the first of 38 escort carriers transferred to the UK during the war under Lend-Lease program.

Nov 25. US troops to Dutch Guiana to protect bauxite mines.

Dec 3 . Turkey has "for sometime" been receiving lend lease aid.

imagine the u.s. playing by the rules, and

therefore the uk losing to the nazis prior to 12-7-41. no, base it on anything but good-guy, bad-guy.

not trying to start a big brew here, just trying to mention what happened historically. if i had a shady neighbor (insert country here), and i thought i had a good reason to attack (insert good reason here), go for it!

[Liam]

Yes! Leadlease was a big deal. Arms made the American's come out of the Great Depression! Britian stood alone in 1940 against the biggest Bully the World had seen since Napoleon. She needed those little 'extras' to keep her Island Soveriegn until the War extended in Russian or US territorial interests...in effect Churchill was smart, bidded his time, he had plenty.

Hitler had much less, squandered what little advantage he did have after France/Poland/Low Countries/Denmark/Norway and great successes early on against British Merchant Marine. Stopping where he was in his tracks it was time to reassess the Bigger picture!

Neutrality does have a lot to do with things! You can't operate huge armies through enemy territory without consequences. Hitler and Mousilline declared war on the US in 1941 partly due to the fact they knew they aided Britian and they wanted to extend their U-boat wolfpacks throughout the Atlantic Sea. She wasn't in any position to face the combined Power of USSR/USA...Britian was more a minor of the US after 1941...<the knife in Hitler's back> Foolish politicians had made similar mistakes in WW1 dragging the US into the War during the last days and turning what could've been a complete victory for the Axis to a defeat...

Violating Neutrals is what cost Germany the first War...It influenced the second by having left fear in the US's heart and instilled it by doing pretty much the same thing all over again...

[Liam]

Admiral Derntiz said if he had the # of U-boats he requested at the onset of War he would have won it singlehandely...check the figures... I know for I had family in the UK and they were on the brink of starvation before a stroke of fate and technology

http://uboat.net/articles/?article=51

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Very Impressive disorder.

But some of those details will be a bitch trying to scale into the game.

But you made a great response in your post.

[Liam]

Sarge that's what File archiving and Programmable Morale is

LOL

[disorder]

thanks les. cut and paste is the most exciting technological developement of the 90's, (next to pop rocks).

First we take Iraq, and THEN we take France! Colin Powell