DoW's are too easy

[Blashy]

IF you play without softbuild limits, taking all those minors will eventually be an issue. Axis manpower limitations.

You'll probably see this more clearly in the next patch .

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Well I like soft build limits-the Germans were

scrounging for troops like crazy (such as Russian

POWs) after Stalingrad and the North Africa fiascos,

which probably wasn't nearly as efficient as using

native German troops. I dislike this arbitrary

line in the sand saying, "No more corps for you!"

[oops mixed metaphor sue me I'm too tired to care]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by guinty1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Spain and Sweden might well have feared it, but that doesn't mean it was ever goign to hapen - like the British feared the RAF would be destroyed by the Luftwaffe in the BoB - it was never going to happen.

regarding your 1st paragraph,the bob might have had a different outcome if the LW had stuck to hammering the raf airfields and radar masts instead of piecemeal city attacks.It was very much possible for the LW to inflict a crushing blow to the RAF in 1940. </font>

[Blashy]

Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

Well I like soft build limits-the Germans were

scrounging for troops like crazy (such as Russian

POWs) after Stalingrad and the North Africa fiascos,

which probably wasn't nearly as efficient as using

native German troops. I dislike this arbitrary

line in the sand saying, "No more corps for you!"

[oops mixed metaphor sue me I'm too tired to care]

Playing with softbuilds on is "cool" but not realistic, as Germany can pop corps more than it had fighting men. All at a cheap price when you have PT 3 or higher.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Well if you are going to make that argument then why

not go one step further and actually model manpower

limits explicitly? You have a pool of men, and each

point loss somewhere detracts from it. You conquer

or annex a country, and some of their manpower is

added to yours (Croats, Russian POWs). You lose too

many troops you lose the capacity to create any more

(and this includes reinforcements).

[Guest Mike]

IMO that would be a good solution - a nd a proper use of computing power - what we have at he moment is a board game on a screen - reminds me of Avalon Hill's "Hitler's War" - great game, lots of fun......but published in 1981 and it sems grand strategy WW2 games haven't moved far since regardles of whether they're on computers of paper card!

In fact I see someone has done "Hitler's War for Windows" - http://homepage.eircom.net/~monalisa/HitlersWar/ - no AI for it tho' so it's not directly competing with SC2 - anyone want to give it a crack??!!

[ June 01, 2006, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[BuddyLee]

Guinty1-

Your info on the RAF and the pounding they took from the LW during the 1st half of the BoB was spot on correct! The decision by Hitler/Goering to switch bombing targets/tactics away from the RAF bases, fields and facilities, and towards the cities was one of the more serious blunders the Reich committed.

[Timskorn]

MY EYES!!

[Guest Mike]

you want we should poke them out for you??

BuddyLee - read my post in response to Guinty. The LW could never have defeated the RAF. However had the RAF decided to withdraw behind London then the Germans might well have thought they had done so and launched Sealion.

But sealion could never have succeeded - so had the RAF withdrawn the Germans would have lost 200-500,000 men in Sealion and much of the transport infrastructure of Europe, completely screwing their war effort for some considerable time!

[BuddyLee]

S.O.- very good points.

Excellent info on pilots per craft as well. That was a big problem that Germany had no answer for. (many people do not realize how devastating the loss of experienced pilots hurt the Luftwaffe).

I would like to read more on the subject because everything I've read indicates that the German pressure was staring to crack the Fighter Command of the RAF. But after suffering terrible losses (some 1750 LW planesd vs. 800 or so RAF) the Germans were shocked the Brits hadn't thrown in the towel, and in their frustration attacked the major cities farther inland.

I know you know the story so I won't continue on here.

I guess what I'd like to know is why couldn't Germany just keep up the unrelenting pressure on the RAF and radar stations had they wanted too?

Your premise that the LW would never have beaten the RAF may be correct because 1. They didn't and 2. They were already turning their attention to Barbarossa by mid-Sept 1940.

I propose that had Germany been committed to defeating the RAF and Britain to the exclusion of all else, they would have.

You are obviously very well versed on WW2. I am interested to hear more about why you think it could never have happened.

Thanks.

[Guest Mike]

My background on this particular subject is that I did a paper on it at year 3 of my degree (3 year BA's here), so I'm pretty firm in my opinions

As I said the RAF was prepared to abandon it's airfields in the SE of England - but they would have done so RATHER than taking too many casualties - so even had the German campaign agaisnt the RAf been continued the British would ahve withdrawn before beign destroyed. This would have preserved the RAF for Sealion.

Popular views of the possible outcomes of the battle are coloured by wartime perceptions. These perceptions weer very real to the people at the time, but as I said above we have the benefit of hindsight and so no excuses for continuing them!!

The RAF had no way of knowing just how well off they were compared to the LW - as far as they were concerned the LW had 3000+ aeroplanes, they had only 6-800 fighters, and so they were under pressure........but of course of those 3000 aeroplanes only 1100 were fighters at the start, and only 800 were 109's - and those were pretty much the only aircraft that mattered to who was going to win - if the German fighters could keep escorting their bombers then the Germans would "defeat" the RAF. If they couldn't then the RAF would "win".

so in hte area where it mattered teh Germans started with only a slim superiority. And of course they had lots of factors workign against them - pilots shot down over England were lost, or often lost if over the Channel, their replacement rates for both a/c and pilots weer much lower - they carried out much more comprehensive training of pilots than the RAF, but this meant they took a long time to train ind they couldn't "ramp up" to replace a sudden increase in losses.

Basically neither side appreciated the other side's characteristics properly - the British thought the LW was huge and unending, where as it was not.

The Germans thought the RAF were small and vulnerable, which it was not.

Essentially the British were pessimists and the Germans were optimists, and they were both wrong!!

[JerseyJohn]

Stalin's Organixt and Buddy Lee,

Great historical discussion on the Battle of Britain. Enjoying it.

To me the problem wasn't with the Luftwaffe, though Goering made very poor decisions from start to finish, on and off the battlefield. The real problem was that Hitler couldn't remain focused on what he wanted to do in the west. He'd never counted on the UK not agreeing to peace terms after the fall of France.

As was said in an earlier thread, it was probably the main reason that the B. E. F. wasn't cut off from reaching the coast; Hitler had some bizarre thoughts about Britain suddenly becoming sympathetic when they found themselves alone and didn't want the war to become too personal.

Finding himself with Britain still fighting in the summer of 1940 he began to ad lib. Up to this point he'd been able to handle everything in short, decisive campaigns. Now, forced to stray from that pattern, he began going astray.

The first thought was that Spain would join the Axis. Gibraltar would be taken, German raiders would operate out of Spanish bases and the UK would quickly see the error of its ways and sign a treaty.

As that fell through, he decided on the direct invasion approach. But there were two minor problems. Britain had a large fleet, and Germany didn't. So, he resoned, the Luftwaffe should secure control of The English Channel and Southern Britain and the Royal Navy wouldn't dave venture into an interdiction role. The German army could cross over on barges, small craft, anything that could be scrounged together.

That fell through and all that remained was the Luftwaffe, suddenly stuck in a role it was never intended to fill. Strategic bombing with no support at all from a land force.

Considering how poorly it was served by Germany's leaders, the amazing thing isn't so much that the RAF won, but that the Luftwaffe performed so well.

None of the details were made public till long after the war, probably at least the 1970s. The only view was that which was expressed in wartime propaganda. Which isn't to take anything away from the RAF. But the outcome, viewed with all the facts, makes much more sense. Probably no one on either side even realized the true situation till long after the war had ended.

[Fartknock3r]

I remember reading from somewhere (dont remember) that Hitler envied the british empire, and admired it, and also wanted to build one like it, but not overseas. And it said thats why he didnt destroy the B.E.F. army. He wanted the empire to remain intact. And he also believed Winstons hate for communism would stop the act of agression between there country and view the only threat to there nations - The USSR.

[JerseyJohn]

Kaiser Wilhelm II was also envious of the British Empire, but in his case Germany also had colonies of its own and rivaled Britain as an imperial power. He was particularly envious after returning from London, I think it was a celebration involving Queen Victoria where he was in awe of exhibits from India and Africa.

Hitler often said that the Italians should keep Africa and the Middle East (that was the fly in the ointment when Iraq first asked him for help, he said it was in Italy's sphere). But after invading Holland and Belgium Germany reorganized it's colonial corps and intended to at least occupy the Belgian Congo. Part of that was it's uranium, but I think he also came to feel that a colonial empire could prove useful later on, after conquering the USSR, when he was to put together his Blue Ocean Navy.

[hellraiser]

The eternal question - in a battle between a maritime power and a land power, who will win?

As history shows, until now the maritime power has an edge over a land power - but this is partly because the land powers were always stupid and fought the wars on maritime powers' terms.

Every land power likes big ships, it's stupid, but true

Attacking UK with aerial assets was a big mistake in the first place. The common sense tells us that the UK is a resourceless island and all her wealth comes from her colonies, from far away. The cost effective solution here was to sever the links to/from the colonies and UK, and with no resources to sustain even her own civilian economy, UK would have signed a peace treaty. North Africa was the best place to try the a/m strategy - you got some italian empire there, i.e. supply sources, you just have to bring some more divisions to capture the whole mid east - no mid east, no link to India and far east colonies (in fact a slow link, that wouldn't have matter anymore). This way the land power (Germany) would have fought the war on her ground with no real chances for the UK to counter it.

But the stupid desire of DOWing USSR in 41 made it more or less impossible. Had the Afrika Korps been given correct priority and USSR DOW-ed in 42 (or even 43) instead of 41, we would most likely live in a completely different world today. Most probably a worse one

[Rolend]

@Hellrasier the problem with waiting to attack Russia was that Russia was only getting stronger. The longer the Germans waited to attack Russia the worse the chance of final victory.

I am a ferm beleiver that even had England made peace with Germany in say mid 41 and America stayed out of the war that an attack on Russia would of still meant the end of Germany. Yea it would of taken longer and been even more bloody for Russia but in the end Russia just had too many human resources and way to much land mass for the Germans to be able to win.

The only way for the Germans to win WWII was not to include Russia in that war and as we all know that was Hitlers real focus.