Major Historical Issues with game.

[Timjohnb5]

This is a very good game, however there are some Historical important issues the creators have missed and I think should be addressed in a future patch.

1) Norway joined the Allied cause in the early period of WW2. In the game they stay Neutral if you play from the beginning. This should be included in the game I feel.

2) Italy made war on Greece in the early period of war and this should be placed in the game I feel.

3) In the later period of the war Vichy France was taken over by Germany directly. This does not happen if you play the game directly from the beginning.

Anyone else feel this should be corrected.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

in regards to italy invading greece, the 1940 game starts in may, so you, the axis player, should declare war on them. And the 1941 game starts in june 1 1/2 months after greece fell. So, invade it yourself, i wont happen automatically.

CVM

[Krikke]

1) I'm not 100% sure, but I tought Norway was invaded by the Germans before joining the allies. The allies also send troops to Norway under the excuse of supporting the Finnish, but their real goal was to secure Norway from the Germans. The Germans were faster, puonded the allied troops back and took Norway.

2) As Mannerheim said, you're in charge of Italy, you control its invasions.

3) You can always attack it. That wouldn't change much, Vichy would be yours, and its colonies Allied. In reality, the Allies actually invaded the French colonies, and Vichy fought back. But the colonies fell quite quickly.

[Norse]

Originally posted by Timjohnb5:

1) Norway joined the Allied cause in the early period of WW2. In the game they stay Neutral if you play from the beginning. This should be included in the game I feel.

Norway was never a minor-allied nation (like Bulgaria for example is minor-axis).

Norway was not interested in any war, if Norway wanted to go to war, then they would have declared war on Sovjet when Sovjet attacked the brother-nation Finland. That's the way it is There was NO governmental interest to join worldwar 2 in Norway, only way to drag Norway into the war is to declare war on them yourself. (gosh I snipped alot of history lessons here )

2) Italy made war on Greece in the early period of war and this should be placed in the game I feel.

Just declare war on Greece as the axis, I can't see the problem with this. Perhaps I misunderstood you. :confused:

3) In the later period of the war Vichy France was taken over by Germany directly. This does not happen if you play the game directly from the beginning.

This one I can agree on. To make another history lesson short , Germany basically annexed Vichy-France after the allies had been at war with Vichy-France for some months (The Vichy-French weren't "effectively" handling the situation, IE, they didn't want to send more French troops to fight against other French troops, a very ackward situation for them).

~Norse~

[ August 17, 2002, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Norse ]

[husky65]

Originally posted by Timjohnb5:

1) Norway joined the Allied cause in the early period of WW2. In the game they stay Neutral if you play from the beginning. This should be included in the game I feel.

I can't find any reference to Norway choosing to join the allied cause prior to invasion, can you direct me to some?

[Timjohnb5]

You seem to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. If I'm playing the Game as the Allies from the beginning campaign on all Historical options choosen, then these historical acts are not happenning. I feel they should be placed within the game. The events did happen so they should be placed.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Timjohnb5:

You seem to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. If I'm playing the Game as the Allies from the beginning campaign on all Historical options choosen, then these historical acts are not happenning. I feel they should be placed within the game. The events did happen so they should be placed.

I understand what you mean now, I just totally disagree with it.

The point of games like this is to rewrite history, once you introduce changes you cannot expect everything else to go exactly as it did historically.

This is a mistake many people make, suggesting that if Hitler had made more subs rather than surface vessels he'd have defeated the Brits (as one example) - it ignores the fact that the Brits would have made some very different decisions in light of what they saw was going on around them.

[ElekTrick]

You are all misunderstanding in the ww2 in Norway there wher two parts . One Qvisling and the Norwegian people ! So Qvisling wher on the side off Hitler but the Norwegian people fought against Qvisling . So i mean that in the game there should be Norwegian small troops maybe one or two corps who fight. Against the germans ! Something like Yugoslavian Partizans ( and of cours like Russian partizans ) . You cant say that in Norway there wher no resistans ! And its just one little problem hitler was planing a bomb in Narvik who ofcours is not on this map there are only Bergen and Oslo , so there are some problems !

[Krikke]

There was resistance in Norway, but I don't think there were partisans.

[aku_djinn]

It was Norwegian partisans that destroyed Germany's heavy water supply to delay their experiments in nuclear technology.

In game terms, I don't think there was major partisan activities like there were in Russia and the Balkans, so it was not represented.

I visited the Norwegian Resistance Museum in Trondheim back in the 1980's. Among other things they really healped ALlied intelligence with the naval war by gatehring information on German naval and air units. Trondheim was a major U-boat base, and of course the fjords were used to (try) and conceal German surface raiders.

[Old Patch]

This story may not be true -

I read somewhere that Norwegian partisans were asked to hlep cripple the Tripitz after the British had failed some of the early attempts to knock it out. The Norwegians came up with unique idea of rolling depth charges down the side of the Fjiord and setting them to detonate under the Tirpitz. The attack failed.

[husky65]

Originally posted by ElekTrick:

You are all misunderstanding in the ww2 in Norway there wher two parts . One Qvisling and the Norwegian people ! So Qvisling wher on the side off Hitler but the Norwegian people fought against Qvisling . So i mean that in the game there should be Norwegian small troops maybe one or two corps who fight. Against the germans !

On this game scale the Norwegian resistance was simply undetectable.

If France and the Low Countries don't get partisans in the game, there is no way Norway should get any.

[Friar Bellows]

Originally posted by husky65:

If France and the Low Countries don't get partisans in the game, there is no way Norway should get any.

I agree. I think maybe people forget the sheer scale of partisan resistance in Yugoslavia and Soviet Union. It was an annoying problem for the Germans, and should be simulated in this game for those two cases.

[Old Patch]

Agreed - by 1945 Tito had turned his partizans in 5 corps of regular troops which were systematically retaking Yugoslavia (and in the process keeping the Soviets out).

[ElekTrick]

Yes but i think that evry country should have their " Partizans " im not saying that there where more ressistanse in Norway than in belgium and nederland but i think taht the city of Narvik should be on the map and that it should have a factory on it for Crist sake the germans where planing a bomb in Narvik the operation name wher Heavy Water have you heard of it !

[Augustus]

I like your ideas. If you play the Axis, you can ignore Norway...I think this is wrong (I re-call Hitler being absolutely paranoid about losing Norway, and thus committed massive arms and troops to protect his newly acquired territory. Therfore, Norway should start he game as neutral, but with a warning about the (hypothetical) political status of the Norweigian government joining the allies (in 40 or 44---you decide

That way, the Germans would be forced to either a) defend Norway if they invaded in 40, or have to face the consequences of Norway turning allied by 1940 or 1944again, you decide!

Vikdun Quisling---pretty much a useless looser.even the Gestapo thought so.

A general rule embeddedinto the game forcing the Italians to attack Greece in 41 would be a good idea...force the Axis to adress a Balkan strategy and overall affect the Russian front.

[Norse]

Originally posted by Augustus:

I like your ideas. If you play the Axis, you can ignore Norway...I think this is wrong (I re-call Hitler being absolutely paranoid about losing Norway, and thus committed massive arms and troops to protect his newly acquired territory. Therfore, Norway should start he game as neutral, but with a warning about the (hypothetical) political status of the Norweigian government joining the allies (in 40 or 44---you decide

I don't mean to put down your suggestion, but this would be completely without historical context!

Both Norway and Sweeden were asked by the allies to join the allied side, whereupon they both replied "not a bloody chance" (during the winter 39-40).

So there you go.

That way, the Germans would be forced to either a) defend Norway if they invaded in 40, or have to face the consequences of Norway turning allied by 1940 or 1944again, you decide!

Vikdun Quisling---pretty much a useless looser.even the Gestapo thought so.

A general rule embeddedinto the game forcing the Italians to attack Greece in 41 would be a good idea...force the Axis to adress a Balkan strategy and overall affect the Russian front.

Why?

~Norse~

[ElekTrick]

No no no Norse hehe. thats true but sweden where neutral all the war . But in Norway there wher fight for gods sake the Norwegan king had to move to England . And one more thing when hitler was ocupeing Russia he was dum and tried to ocupie it on the winter and he had major losses because of that so i think that in the game there could be some kind os snow storms who injures the axis "Corps , Armies ..." when theyre atacking Russia atleast in the Hard version maybe not in the green ( Easy ) version !

[husky65]

Originally posted by Augustus:

I like your ideas. If you play the Axis, you can ignore Norway...I think this is wrong (I re-call Hitler being absolutely paranoid about losing Norway, and thus committed massive arms and troops to protect his newly acquired territory.

If you play the Axis, you are taking Hitlers role - it is silly to suggest that you should be required to take his personal paranoias as well.

The whole point of games like this is to give you choices, introducing specific rules to then remove those choices is counterproductive.

[Kokoda]

Re Norway and WW2

The reasoning of Hitler's invasion of Norway was protection of the vital trade in iron ore from Sweden. He feared the British would mine Norweigian waters and deny him the steel he needed. And he was right. Churchill had authorised mining and was preparing to invade Norway- the german's just beat him to it. The Cossack's seizure of the Altmark was the trigger.

[Norse]

Originally posted by ElekTrick:

No no no Norse hehe. thats true but <snip>

When Sovjet declared war upon Finland in the winterwar '39 '40, then the allies (France and the Commonwealth) looked for ways to assist Finland. Thus, they "created" forces to be sent to Finland, but they needed a way to send them there (transport to Bergen, railroad to Sweeden, and to Finland). Therefore, they sent diplomats to Norway and Sweeden, and they asked Norway and Sweeden if they would join the allied cause. Neighter nation had any great desire to join this war, and let northern Scandinavia be the field of a major conflict, so both declined the offer and stood firm on their neutrality.

~Norse~

[Augustus]

Husky + Norse

The game is just too easy otherwise. I think the Axis should be forced to defend a broad Western front...stretching up to Scandanavia.

Leaving Norway out makes the game unbalanced in the Axis favour, in my opinion, same as Greece.

My preference in these types of games is not so much a 'what if' scenario, but rather to play a game that reflects, as closely as possible, historic events. Hence, Norway and Greece as mandatory triggers at the appropriate time during the game.

Cheers, Augustus.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Augustus:

My preference in these types of games is not so much a 'what if' scenario, but rather to play a game that reflects, as closely as possible, historic events.

Watch a movie.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Augustus:

Husky + Norse

The game is just too easy otherwise. I think the Axis should be forced to defend a broad Western front...stretching up to Scandanavia.

Leaving Norway out makes the game unbalanced in the Axis favour, in my opinion, same as Greece.

That is an AI issue, if the AI invades via Norway or Greece once or twice, you lose that certainty.

My preference in these types of games is not so much a 'what if' scenario, but rather to play a game that reflects, as closely as possible, historic events.

The World At War TV series is available on DVD.

[ElekTrick]

Yes but dont you understand norway was ocupied sweden was not so and wtf no body answers my question what about Narvik its not on the map ????? Why ???