Diplo: "Spain is Lame" strategy, USA still a joke, Germans overated

[stanhope]

Blashy you seem like a nice chap. But don't blow democracy away. It is a nice system to live by. You won't get shot by the goverment for speaking your mind. As far as failures, you mention the Romans. As I recall, they began to fail when they fail to run a democracy and went to totalitarian empire. The Greeks failed by being conqured. As I alway believe it's not the best system to enjoy. But if one comes up, I will go there. JJ really should calm down. This is only a game. I don't believe anyone here plays this game wearing a Nazi unifrom.

[Iriemon]

jon_j_rambo: This strategy of dumping MMPs into gifts to the Spanish is lame. What kind of game is this? I KNEW DIPLO would suck. After a couple games, this is standard cookie crap with everybody. I refuse to use it. Seriously, so Germany sends Polands plunder with one turn of their own income, and they get a bunch of Spanish dudes on their side? Since when do the bullfighters become Nazis? They give their entire nation, forces, and cash to those German freaks just for a 250 MMP grant? This is stupid.

Spain in 1939 had just recently come out of a bloody civil war that the fascists under Franco had won, with a lot of help from Germany and Italy. Spain thus had a natural disposition towards the axis. Franco was hesistant to commit Spain to another war after so recently having been thru one. It is not, however, impossible that Spain could have joined the axis. The allies exerted a significant amount of diplomatic pressure to keep Spain neutral.

The Germans are lame too, they were overated. They didn't beat anybody. Everybody makes their Generals out to be demi-gods.

Amazing comment given what they achieved. And what they achieved was largely because of an experienced and superior general staff.

Give me a tank, I'll kill sleeping farmers. All these stacked ratings for Fritz is unrealistic.

Wermacht performance on both a strategic and tactical level belie your statement.

The USA gets crap in this game. No bombers? No tech? An inferior navy? Give me a break.

The US in 1939 had crap. It had a miniscule army and airforce, that was woefully outdated in 1939. The US had no bomber force in 1939. The US navy was the largest worldwide, but don't forget it was divided between two oceans. The game does not represent US force levels unrealistically, IMO.

WW-2 games are slanted to the Germans on purpose for sales.

WWII as so popular for gaming because the real war was relatively balanced, far-reaching, and dynamic.

Goering was an idiot at the Battle of Britain, but in this game, the RAF doesn't have a prayer. The LF fights like angels from God?

There is some merit to that. The RAF basically outfought the LW in the BOB. Maybe the UK should start with an extra air tech.

YOU KNOW WHAT's unrealistic about both SC & SC2? WHY DO YOU GET EXPERIENCE FOR BEATING UP LOSERS?

Historically, experienced troops, even (or maybe especially) those who gained experience beating up losers, fought far more effectively than inexperienced troops.

[Timskorn]

Even losers can fire back at people. When your life is in danger from bullets flying around you and you live, I'd say that's experience. If you dive bomb and strafe live targets, its honing pilot experience, even if the losers aren't shooting back effectively.

[Iriemon]

The U.S. has to be unrepresented or else the game would be far to in the allies favor.

Germany was COMPLETELY trounced in WWII. They really did not even come close to winning. Yes, they nearly captured Moscow and possibly could have saved the 6th Army in Stalingrad, but even that did not mean the SU would have been defeated, and more over even if the SU would have been defeated it still would have taken too long with the western allies breathing down Germany's neck.

Germany was ultimately completely trounced, but I disagree with your assessment that "they really did not come close to winning."

The war against the SU was a near thing. The German army was really only stopped in 1941 because of the unusually harsh Soviet winter.

A couple of factors might have changed the outcome. Had the Germans not been diverted in the Balkans and invaded the SU in early May, as initially planned, and not late in June, the extra 6-7 weeks of good weather could very well have allowed them to take Moscow and Leningrad. Had the Japanese not attacked the US, and had attacked the SU instead, there would have been no transfer of Siberian troops, which also may have made a crucial difference.

If the SU had been knocked out of the war, it would have been a different story altogether.

If we really see the kind of numbers that the U.S. and western allies tossed at the Germans in SC2 it would be game set and match every single time.

I find that to be the usual result between competent players if the Germans fail to cripple the SU.

Germany is a relativly small country compared to Russia and America. add England, Canada, etc. and you can plainly see the German's were outnumbered like 10 to 1. Try putting 10 armies for every one of your German ones in the editor and see how long you last.

The allies force strength relative to Germany's was nowhere near 10 to 1, except maybe at the very end of the war.

On top of that, I honestly do believe a lot of people in europe and canada let their dislike of the U.S. transfer into these things. A solid number of people in europe have to much pride to admit how much America really helped out. Moreover many simply say the U.S. was ultimatly useless since Russia would have won anyway. These kind of ideals and anti-american sentiment are felt even on this board. People will be a lot quicker to point out Kasserin Pass then to mention any other successful operation. Just like in the reverse everyone talks about Stalingrad and the glorious Russians, but never mentions early Kiev where 3/4 of a million russians were ethier killed or captured, or the entire first year of the war were Soveit forces were beaten so badly that even Stalin was not so sure thing's would turn out ok.

I don't contend that the US was "ultimately useless" or that US forces did not make an important contribution to the war. But the fact is, the German army was beat by the Russians. By the time the allies invaded Normandy in June 44, the Whermacht was already beat, had been pushed out of Russia, and were realing backwards in the Balkans and on the Polish border.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Iriemon:

The German army was really only stopped in 1941 because of the unusually harsh Soviet winter.

Thanks for the good laugh.

"...in december 1941, when we were surprised by the russian winter..." Yeah, sure, all out of the sudden there was snow and bitter cold. Who really could have imagined that in russia.

[Major Spinello]

... well, the onset of Winter WAS sudden and early. Temperature drop was extreme and stopped the advance in its tracks. What the Soviets in 41 needed and didn´t have to turn the tables around was time to reorganize and put up a working defense against a foe advancing that fast. The winter was what got them the time they needed. Actually, I´m convinced they would have lost the case if the weather would have stayed mild.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Major Spinello:

... well, the onset of Winter WAS sudden and early. Temperature drop was extreme and stopped the advance in its tracks. What the Soviets in 41 needed and didn´t have to turn the tables around was time to reorganize and put up a working defense against a foe advancing that fast. The winter was what got them the time they needed. Actually, I´m convinced they would have lost the case if the weather would have stayed mild.

Why? Because Moscow would have been overrun? That would'nt have lost the war for the soviet union.

[Blashy]

For the Axis to break the Russian back they would have needed to cut off the Caucausus AND even that still would not mean Russia is out.

The Axis would have had to crawl all to way to the URALS to get some kind of peace settlement, but surrender? Never, not with the size of that country.

Axis might have been loosing by the time of D-Day but the Russians never would have succeeded the way they did if not for USA and UK giving some pressure on the other side as early as Nov 1942.

Play a game with USA and UK as neutrals, then try and win with Russia alone, not gonna happen.

All 3 needed to be active to defeat the Axis.

[rclawson007]

Blashy is right. It helps to take out a entire world map (or globe) and look at the size of Mother Russia...compared to what is shown in most WW2 games, books, etc. which seem to just cut-off Russia at the Urals. It's like saying IF Japan had managed to invade San Francisco and take all of the west coast up to the Rocky Mountains that the US would have captiulated. Ceeded the territory...yea maybe...but not surrender the rest of the country.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Oh BTW, the weather (mud) was the reason why

Barbarossa was postponed to June 22, not any

delay related to the Yugo campaign.

Wikipedia Link [scroll down to "Later Events"]

[Rolend]

Mud also played a part in why Moscow was not taken, there was weeks of bad mud before hard winter set in and that caused as much of a slow down as the winter did. Not to mention that the Germans could of taken Moscow without a fight had they not turned south 6 weeks earlier to surround and cutoff some half a million Russians, after which they restarted their push on Moscow, had they not delayed they would of easily had Moscow.

With that said I agree with those that say it would not of changed a thing. Moscow was just not that important a strategic target. Just ask Napoleon how taking Moscow helped his Russian campaign. It is mind boggling if you look at the total number of killed, wounded or captured Russian soldiers in the first year of the war, or the amount of land lost to the Germans, yet there seemed to be an endless supply of Russians and a never ending Russia. Just read some of the journals form German soldiers taken during the first year, and keep in mind this is when they were 'crushing' Russia. Could the Germans of caused the downfall of Stalin, possibly but I just don't think they had the man power or resources to beat Russia out right.

[Lars]

Well, Napoleon might have been alright if his soldiers hadn't burned the place down.

[Rolend]

Lars I think that is a bit over played, it was more the lack of supplies then the lack of a roof over their heads. Besides Napoleon thought that he could force the Russain army to 'come out and play' if he went after Moscow, he wanted to destory the Russian army more then take Moscow. This however is getting slighthly off subject, I only used it as an example to point out that the fall of Moscow would certenly not meant the fall of Russia.

[Barcelona 1936]

I don´t want to put more firewood on fire but about undervalue weather in war or battles, i want to add my opinion supported by examples of this (some of them happened reciently); Armada Invencible against England, Greco-Persian Wars,napoleonic Grand Armee,D-day etc...by the way sand´s storm stopped the most powerfull army in the world when invading Irak, add to this that relative forces aren´t so diferents in 1941 than in 2003, an you can see that weather have a key rol in wars and in battles. Earth , Oceans and Climate are more powerfull than any weapon that men have developed (termonuclear heads included).

[dispalor]

The two most underestimated Generals in history were General weather and General Epidemic. Those two decided more battles and wars than any other General by far. Hm... perhaps General Hunger...

[Lars]

Originally posted by Rolend:

Lars I think that is a bit over played, it was more the lack of supplies then the lack of a roof over their heads. Besides Napoleon thought that he could force the Russain army to 'come out and play' if he went after Moscow, he wanted to destory the Russian army more then take Moscow. This however is getting slighthly off subject, I only used it as an example to point out that the fall of Moscow would certenly not meant the fall of Russia.

True, but it would have probably have meant the end of all effective resistance, as the road and rail networks all ran through there.

Keyword being "effective". Think the Germans could have easily held the line against anything the Russians could have scraped together after that.

[Major Spinello]

Just wanted to add that it will not do to look at a map of mother Russia and just compare the occupied to the unoccupied part. According to the "Month by Month Atlas of WW2" the occupied region in 42 held 50% of the Russian population.

And I don´t agree that Moscow was an unimportant strategical target. With Moscow, it was an "all-roads-go-to-Rome" type thing, especially with railroads. Taking it would have caused severe infrastructure and transportation problems. Not to mention the psychological factor. For a good part, a war is won or lost in the mind of the combatants.

[Iriemon]

Originally posted by xwormwood:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Iriemon:

The German army was really only stopped in 1941 because of the unusually harsh Soviet winter.

Thanks for the good laugh.

"...in december 1941, when we were surprised by the russian winter..." Yeah, sure, all out of the sudden there was snow and bitter cold. Who really could have imagined that in russia. </font>

[xwormwood]

The Wehrmacht was exhausted when they reached the outskirts of moscow (10 weeks of fighting, marching & heavy losses), and the supply lines were miserable. One good example could be the missing winter clothing, which was stored several hundred kilometers behind the frontlines but couldn't be delivered to the front (Hitler decided that the limited transport capacities should only be used to deliver the badly needed ammo.)

On the other hand was Moscow heavily fortified.

And Moscow is not Paris, there would have been heavy fightings in the streets, probably just like Stalingrad 1942 or Berlin 1945.

This with the siberians coming in strength (from december until Februar the russians brought 117 new Divisions (and lots of T-34 - - - the germans used the 38t & Pz III ) to the front compared to the 9 new german divisions.

I honestly don't think that it would have made a difference.

More good weather would have probably only resulted

in even more ideas from Hitler where and what to attack. The whole Barbarossa suffered from Hitlers "to many goals with too little forces" strategy.

But then the whole bloody war was only started because of this maniac...

[ June 21, 2006, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[Lars]

Er, the Russian wad was pretty well shot at that point too.

Moscow 1941 - Hitler’s first defeat

[Blashy]

Nice write up. Man, loosing 20k tanks, just mindboggles me everytime, 20k tanks! How the hell can you get your ass kicked when you have 20 000 tanks!?

Amazing how organization is so important.

[Panzeh]

I don't see why the Germans can deviate from their historical strategy, and the Allies get no chance. The US is not allowed to land in Normandy with M26s, the Soviets always have to put up an inept defense, and the French always get simply bulldozed(this isn't really how they fell, but you have to make the french pathetic and weak).

Had the Russians defended their country logically, then the Germans would not have gotten near enough to Moscow to threaten anything.

[Lars]

LOL.

It's the Germans who have no chance to deviate.

At least, not in the major decisions. DOW on US and USSR.

[Blashy]

The Allies can most certainly deviate!

In one game I took Portugal and Spain since they had no joined Axis, instead of entering by France.

In two other games I took Finland as soon as it joined.

In another game I had a HUGE and well prepared frontline Russian defense that was quite effective, considering I had IW2 and Germany was still at 1.

You can do it.

As for the French, well what can I say... they sucked and nothing will ever change that. The French always sucked except under Charlemagne and Napoleon.

[Rolend]

Blashy yea and look at the total number of Russian troops wounded/killed/captured in the frist few months of the war, had that been any other country it would of been finished. I think the Germans were doomed from the start even had everything gone perfectly for them, the best they could of hoped for was to force a peace and as long as Stalin was in charge there was no way that was happening.