Major Historical Issues with game.

[husky65]

Originally posted by ElekTrick:

Yes but dont you understand norway was ocupied sweden was not so

Actually we do know that IRL Norway was occupied and Sweden wasn't, but it doesn't change much from a game perspective.

and wtf no body answers my question what about Narvik its not on the map ????? Why ???

You will also note that Cronulla is left off of the map (a disgrace IMHO), such are the design choices, you have to end the map somewhere in this type of game.

[murks]

Why is Narvik not on the map? Because Norway was simply not big enough to get three cities (and the associated resources) in this game. Hubert probably reasoned that it was a historical accident that the fighting took place at Narvik and that Oslo and Trondheim (or whatever the second city is) are more important cities.

The general question in this thread seems to be: Should the axis be forced to follow a more historical path than they are right now? On the one hand, rewriting history is the very point of the game, as someone has already mentioned. On the other hand the necessity for germany to take care of it's supplies of important raw materials played a huge role in WW II, as in the case of Norway (Swedish steel) and Romania (oil). I agree that a the need to get hold of specific resources would add another interesting dimension to the game, while at the same time forcing a more historical path.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

First off, SC is my favorite strategy game of all time. The only main deficiency of the game (besides no Finnish HQ ) is the range of the map. The scale per hex is perfect. But imho (like anyone cares ) the map doesnt extend as far north as it should.

Narvik is one of the things that is sorely missed, but key cities of political/strategic importance like: Petsamo (Finland) Oulu(Finland), Archangel (ussr) and the entirety of iceland. Am i the only one that wants to recreate teh artic convoys, airbases in iceland and allied landing at narvik?

However, it should also be noted. That a change in the map is not possible for SC1 (look at me, im talking as if there will be another one ) Because the AI is programed for the current map, the changing/ adding of just a few hexes would throw the AI off signifigantly. These issues would have to be adressed in a new game.

As for this being an Historical issue, i disagree. There are very few real historical issues in the game that cant be overcome by the player. Now the editor has some historical (or hypothetical, depends on how u look at it. ) issues, but u just have to learn how to work around them as best you can. Ill let that be all for now.

CvM.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

bump

[Rouge]

Originally posted by 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 !

Hitler never tried to invade during the winter, the general oppinion by the Axis general staff was that russia could be crushed in 6 weeks. What was dumb is making Stalingrad a grudge match between him and Stalin and not packing any thing warm

[ElekTrick]

but he did atack on the winter not when it started but before and when they nearly reached moskow the russian winter started and hitler had mayor losses !And carl von ... you are a great knower of the WW2 ! :cool:

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Hey thanks, im not sure what i said but thankyou.

Anyway, imho, there are very few histroical issues that cant be overcome by the player, just figure out what we need to do, and do it.

Damn i love this game.

CVM

PS. And this forum

[TrionDelta]

rouge,

the operational plan was 10 to 11 weeks not 6. read Panzer Leader it gives a good represention of the war in the east.

also there was winter offensives by the germans in '41 there drive on moscow took place in winter.

also did u know hitler turned them 180 miles from moscow to take Khrakow? if he hadnt mosow probably fallen.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Dont you mean K'Harkov, Krackow is is Poland.

CVM

[TrionDelta]

So im not good with russian names

[Melchett]

I'd vote more for Kiev as the delaying factor in the 1941 drive on Moscow

Another top-notch history of the Russian Campaign is Alan Clarks "Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict 1941-1945". You can read a bit of the intro chapter at amazon.com -- it's a detailed yet highly readable analysis of the entire campaign: military, industrial, and especially the personalities, conniving and backstabbing within the German forces.

It has the advantage of NOT being written by a surviving German General (i.e., Mr. Clark has no personal reason to push the "Hitler was always stupid and wrong, the Generals were always wise and correct" agenda).

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Melchett:

(i.e., Mr. Clark has no personal reason to push the "Hitler was always stupid and wrong, the Generals were always wise and correct" agenda).

"Sing it, Brother Melchett!"

I am soooo tired of the "Germans would have won the war if not for that wacko Hitler" spiel. I always marvel that the same people who push this don't realise there wouldn't have been a war if not for that same wacko.

The reality is that successes and blunders were shared around by all participants to greater or lesser degrees, and the uber-Wehrmacht myth is largely that - a myth.

[/rant]

[Willard]

Actually, you might find this comment weird, but William Shirer wrote about this topic in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."

The issue was of course Hitler and his generals in regards to the assault on Moscow and German withdrawals in the face of Russian (Siberian) division onslaught in Dec 1941.

The issue is two-fold.

The German generals argued that by diverting panzer divisions from Army Group Centre in Oct 1941, it delayed the onslaught on Moscow and allowed the Russians to regroup.

By the time the Germans got around to attacking in late November/December, the best they could do was get within about 15 miles of the Kremlin.

Of course once the offensive peetered out and the Russians counterattacked, Hitler gave the infamous no retreat/withdrawal order to his commanders.

Now, this is where it gets interesting. The German generals later wrote that had Hitler allowed them to withdraw and regroup, the would not have suffered as many devastating losses.

However, Shirer has an interesting quote from Blummentritt-- who basically said that Hitler's stand and fight order basically saved the collapse of the German Army in December 1941. Now you might all think this is crazy, but Blummentritt's belief was not based on operational, but tactical thought.

In the back of all the German generals minds was Napolean's offensive in 1812 (Incidentally, La Grand Armee and the panzers kicked off there Russian offensive on June 22!!!). The German generals advance for Army Group Center was on the same road that Napolean used. Now when the snow came and the temperature dropped, when gas freezed and the winter clothes hadnt arrived, the ordinary German soldier began to panic. According to Blummentritt, had Hitler allowed the withdrawal on an operational scale, the tactical results would have been disastorous!!! Blummentritt argued that where were the units going to withdraw to? What positions? What supplies? How do you move the guns and the tanks stuck in snow or broken down? The result would have been a rout. After a day or two of withdrawal, the Germans would have done what the La Grand Armee had done---dropped their weapons and given up or walked home. Had that happened in Dec 1941, who knows what the result would have been!!!

[Melchett]

I realize that this is pulling the thread off-track (off-track? *snort, snort* what a bad pun! ) but I can't resist tossing out a couple of excerpts from Clark's book regarding the widely accepted "surefire victory but for Hitler's meddling" view of the "single thrust to Moscow" idea.

Discussing the spectacular lunge of Army Group Center to Smolensk, and Guderian's subsequent demands to unleash the "center thrust", Clark notes:

"...knowing what we do now of the strength of the Russian armies, even at that time, and of the plans they themselves had prepared for a riposte, it is by no means certain that such a thrust would have succeeded. It would have been a gigantic gamble, about which the only certain thing that can be said is that it would have ended the war -- one way or another." (pp 81)

A few pages later, he begins an analysis of the events in and around the Smolensk salient with this summary:

"Since 1945, the protagonists of the single narrow thrust to Moscow have enjoyed a free run for their views. It is always easier to extol the virtues of a hypothetical alternative than to justify a cautious and disappointing reality. It is also the case that those who were against the center thrust are all dead. (...) A dispassionate survey of the facts will show how perilous the Germans' position was. They had no more than ten divisions across the Dnieper, and these had penetrated a further 120 miles beyond the river. The main crossings at Orsha and Mogilev were still in Russian hands, and occupied by garrisons themselves larger than the whole German spearhead; while to the north and south of the salient four Russian armies had the force, if not the ability, to converge and crush its roots. Moreover, all the equipment was in need of repair. Every tank had travelled on its own tracks from the Polish boundary, and the wheeled transport on which the divisions depended (...) was being knocked to pieces in the rough going. (...) In truth, Kluge's "silken thread" was stretched to breaking, but a more apposite analogy would have been that of a cyclist on a high wire. The Second Panzer Army had to keep up its momentum -- and its balance -- or fall over. And now Timoshenko, with his twenty-one fresh divisions, was making ready to throw a log in its path." (pp 88-89)

[ElekTrick]

No No i didnt say that hitler was dumb i sad he did a mistake to invade russia in the winter !

And why wouldnt norway be big enough to have 3 cityes ??? Narvik is 100 times more important than bergen ! And i think that in the sc2 there should be the whole worlds map and evry batle field and evry detail ( historical or other ) should be perfect . Its not hard to get information about the WW2 . I know that if this should be , we have to wait longer for the game but wtf why not. Then when we get the game the game wil last longer and it will be more interesting and we could all learn something just kidding.

:cool:

[husky65]

Originally posted by TrionDelta:

also did u know hitler turned them 180 miles from moscow to take Khrakow? if he hadnt mosow probably fallen.

Getting to a major city and taking that city are two very different things, see Stalingrad and Leningrad for two examples...

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by ElekTrick:

No No i didnt say that hitler was dumb i sad he did a mistake to invade russia in the winter !

You're confusing me a bit here. The Germans invaded Russia in June, which is summer, as I'm sure you know.

Can you clarify what you mean by "invade Russia in winter"?

[ElekTrick]

I mean when they came to moskow not to moscow a litle bit away of moskow , it was to cold and the german soldiers and tanks wasnt prepared for this so they had mayor losses there !

[Brian Rock]

I see.

Well, Hitler couldn't conceive of not taking the Russians out well before winter. The Germans had taken Polan in about a month, France in six weeks, and so on. How could the wretched commies hold on more than a few months against the unstoppable Wehrmacht?

This is what happens when you start to believe your own PR.

[ElekTrick]

lol but the russians wher in a secret pact i think with the germans ( was it secret i dont remember heheheh )And if they didnt atack russia they could rule the world with the russians!

xc(::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>

[Scorpion_sk]

Ok, let´s not say "If it hadn´t been for Hitler" rather than "If only some of the more intelligent german types had organised and pulled off the assassination of Hitler....."

We all know that it wouldn´t have been exactly hard, what with the man man(iac) appearing in public so often!

However, what a public assassination of Hitler would have done for the people we do not know...perhaps they could have masqueraded it to be an assassination by the allies! Now wouldn´t that have done wonders for the morale...

I believe the "correct" time for doing this would be just before Hitler ordered the Panzers not to destroy the Dunkirk pocket

I´m not saying it would´ve been a sure-fire win, not at all, but things would´ve been muuuch different....

(Disclaimer : Of course I don´t EVER hope that this would´ve taken place or that the war would have had any other kind result (I like Europe the way it is) But I do acknowledge the fact that Germany saved Finland during WW2.)

[ElekTrick]

HEY i didnt say that it was hitlers fault i sad that was dumb ok. And im not saying that they lost the war because of hitler !

[BobWarlock]

This is on an old thread but:

Re: Greece, Norway, etc.

How about a new set of check boxes (Historical, Random, Neutral) in the opening screen for "Periphery" or something like that.

If Historical is checked, then Greece, Norway, Denmark, and perhaps Yugoslavia enter the war against the Axis at the time they were historically invaded (at the end of the Allied turn, of course), forcing the Axis to respond.

Random would be likewise with a, surprise, random factor added and whatever other modifiers are appropriate. (Maybe Norway is less likely while Denmark is neutral; ditto Yugoslavia while Greece is neutral).

And Neutral would be the way things are now, except maybe with Yugoslavia staying neutral.

This would be work for Hubert, of course, but I'm trying to think in terms of systems that are already used elsewhere.

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by BobWarlock:

If Historical is checked, then Greece, Norway, Denmark, and perhaps Yugoslavia enter the war against the Axis at the time they were historically invaded (at the end of the Allied turn, of course), forcing the Axis to respond.

I'm guessing the reason you want this is to have the game unfold more as it did historically. Presming this is desirable (and I'm in the "why should I be forced to repeat mistakes?" camp, although I recognise you did suggest this is an option, not the default ), this seems kind of a strange way to do it.

Why? Unless the German is keeping up with the historical timetable the German player suddenly has to cope with potential invasions from the Norwegians, Danes, Greeks and Yugoslavs. Not quite the outcome I imagine you're looking for.

[BobWarlock]

I think the historical path can be fun sometimes just because WWII just doesn't seem like WWII unless the Axis controls the overwhelming majority of Europe.

As to why I'd go about it this way, it seems like the simplest way to force a human player to make the invasions without making major changes in the code (since there's obviously already a "neutral country enters the war" routine).

The "Danish invasion of Berlin" problem you mention is valid, though. Maybe the Germans (& Allies?) should get a "Denmark is preparing for war" message the previous turn.

Maybe in Random there should just be a small chance of each peripheral country joining in, but enough so that the Axis player can figure that conquering Greece now can save him a surprise later.

If Sweden, Turkey or Spain might join the Axis, surely some of these countries might have joined the Allies, if left alone.