Suggestion - remove Sov & UK surrenders, change vic conditions

[dicedtomato]

Blashy, this is what I've been trying to tell you. You're advocating that the game should be a certain way because of history, yet SC2 is unrealistic in so many ways.

Let's take two examples. I think you're right that the U.S. would not have declared war on Germany had Britain fallen in 1940. I also agree with Sombra, in that it's possible that the Soviet people so hated Stalin that losing Moscow would have caused a Russian collapse. So let's imagine a game where the U.S. sits on its thumbs while London becomes New Munich, and Stalin's head is stuck on a pike because Moscow falls. Think it would be fun to play the Allies?

Meanwhile, the game allows the Germans to conquer the Middle East without breaking a sweat, even though Germany didn't have the logistics to support two panzer divisions divisions, let alone 20 + three air fleets.

It's not a question of the game having to play out exactly like WWII. But if history is the goal, than it should give players the historical choices - and limitations - that their real-life counterparts did.

Personally, I think we should stop talking about realism and just concentrate on play balance. Given the type of game that SC2, I'd rather it be fun than realistic.

Diced Tomato

[Blashy]

USA would only do nothing until Pearl Harbour and so they join eventually.

Moscow caused a collapse? I say never because of that countries history, it has been invading countless times and Moscow or other Capital of their era fell without them surrendering.

Noway would have Russia fallen, they did a great job at moving all their industry in the Urals.

If the Urals had fallen, sure I can see Russia no longer engaging in the war but not even surrendering as past the Urals the Germans would not have had the manpower to chase them. Hence why I say a Russian surrender if all the cities are taken but NO plunder.

From Minsk to the Urals represents about 1/10th of total land. Sure it was their major infrastructure but again, they would have moved Urals industry.

The soviets would have won the war alone vs. Germany just because of the size of their country and the manpower. Surrender when you know you can win long term? Noway. Be taken out of the war for an extended period (couple of years) because your major industrial areas are gone, yes.

[Lars]

Blashy, as was pointed out elsewhere, all roads led to Moscow.

It's not really the loss of the capital that would be devestating, but the loss of the central hub of the rail network. No way to move resources from point A to point B anymore.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Lars:

Blashy, as was pointed out elsewhere, all roads led to Moscow.

It's not really the loss of the capital that would be devestating, but the loss of the central hub of the rail network. No way to move resources from point A to point B anymore.

Very true, but that would not cause the collapse of the Soviet union. If the rails don't work for Russia (scorched earth remember) they don't work for Germany and so the Russians keep falling back and eventually Germany has no choice but to stop because of a lack of manpower, simply over stretched.

So a in "game surrender" of Russia with no plunder would IMHO represent Germany no longer chasing Russia due to lack of manpower and Russia being out of fighting because they have to rebuild their industries and lack of infrastructure past the Urals.

Fair enough?

[Rolend]

It is not offten I agree with Blashy However this time I do. I firmly belive that had England fallen the captial would of been moved to Canada, the US would NOT of entered the war in Europe, even after Pearl Harbor. N Africa would of fallen as the 'New England' would of had real trouble defending it both from a resource stand point and a morale stand point. The Middle East then would of fallen to Germany and Russia could of been invaded from both the South and West. Once Moscow, Stalingrad and the Cacucus's fell Stanlins head would be on a pike and the Russians would of sued for peace. The Germans would of given it because they cared little about the rest of Russia. End of war. I know a LOT of IFs

By the way had just Moscow fell no way Russia bows out, they fight on tell Stalingrad and the Cacucuses fall. I think the Russians expected Moscow to fall in the first year of the war, in fact had the Germans not turned south after their first push the Russians were going to let Moscow fall without a fight. They were already in the process of doing just that but when the Germans turned south it gave them time to shore up their defenses, the Siberean troops show up along with an early winter. Moscow was NOT the key to Germany losing the war in Russia.

[Blashy]

But USA would have entered eventually as Germany did DoW on USA, it was part of the pact with Japan.

And Hitler's ego would have been HUGE with the conquest of UK and so why the hell not DoW on USA, he would have felt unstoppable.

As for the African and Middle East, easily taken? Not if the whole of the Brits start migrating in the med when they see UK is about to fall, imagine the whole UK navy in the med with the remaining troops. Could take quite a while for the Axis to get it done. IMHO, not worth it if you have 15+ UK ships down there.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Blashy:

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

Blashy, as was pointed out elsewhere, all roads led to Moscow.

It's not really the loss of the capital that would be devestating, but the loss of the central hub of the rail network. No way to move resources from point A to point B anymore.

Very true, but that would not cause the collapse of the Soviet union. If the rails don't work for Russia (scorched earth remember) they don't work for Germany and so the Russians keep falling back and eventually Germany has no choice but to stop because of a lack of manpower, simply over stretched.

So a in "game surrender" of Russia with no plunder would IMHO represent Germany no longer chasing Russia due to lack of manpower and Russia being out of fighting because they have to rebuild their industries and lack of infrastructure past the Urals.

Fair enough? </font>

[Lars]

Btw, scorched earth doesn't hurt the Germans anywhere nearly as bad as the situation the Russians would have been in.

There's a big difference between moving all that rail 6" to the left and putting in a whole new railroad.

[Blashy]

They blew up everything, it was not just "derailed", some areas yes but most of the infrastructures were blown apart or moved out to the Urals.

They did not simply derail and cut phone lines.

That is why I've suggested that when the Russians retake a city it should not go higher than 5 supply as well, it has been scorched TWICE, it will take more than 1-2 "war" years to get that place functional at 100% =) .

[Lars]

Blashy, you're not seriously suggesting they blew up 1,000 km of railroad embankment, are you?

Track, bridges, whatever, can be relatively easily replaced compared to the effort involved in laying out a whole new line. That can take decades.

[Blashy]

No, of course not, that would be one hell of a feat!

But blowing up the railheads that is not replaced easily and I doubt the Germans had the manpower to start rebuilding.

[Lars]

You'll find this highly interesting then.

Deutsche Reichsbahn - The German State Railway in WWII

A snippet.

The following gives an indication as to how quickly German railway repair forces were able to make a destroyed line operable again:

11 July 1941 - 4th Pz Group reaches Porkhov;

18 July 1941 - 1st DRG train arrives same

23 August 1941 - 4th Pz Group reaches Luga;

23 August 1941 - as above

08 August 1941 - 16th Armee reaches Staraya Russa;

29 September 1941 - as above

[Rolend]

Blashy yes very true but if I am playing the part of Hitler in the game I have more brains then that and I don't DoW the USA Besides I don't think there is proof that there was a set agreement with Japan on DoW of US, the only set agreement was that if Japan DoW on Russian then Germany would DoW US. I think that was a dipolmatic mistake on Hitlers part, he DoW the US before Japan DoW Russia, then Japan either backed away or there was no 'set in stone' agreement to begin with.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Rolend:

It is not offten I agree with Blashy However this time I do. I firmly belive that had England fallen the captial would of been moved to Canada, the US would NOT of entered the war in Europe, even after Pearl Harbor.

What - not even when Germany declared war on the USA??!!

[Rolend]

Stalin O of course they would have, had Germany done so, I am just supposing that after the fall of England Hitler would of figured there was no need to but you never know what that loon would do.

EDIT ADDED: I am a firm believer that Hitler never wanted a war with the west and had England and France done nothing after the invasion of Poland then there would not of been a war in the west. Now of course had the Germans managed to win in Russia he most likly would of turned his eyes west but by then it would of been a much tougher nut to crack.

[Blashy]

Rolend you have a point. Hitler actually admired the British and would have prefered neutrality with them. I think this is common knowledge by any WW2 enthusiast.

Still, if USA joins after Pearl Harbor, they would eventually fight Germany, they had no choice, you just could not let them have the monopoly of Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

And if you don't agree, well for the games sake USA joins, .

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Lars:

You'll find this highly interesting then.

Deutsche Reichsbahn - The German State Railway in WWII

A snippet.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The following gives an indication as to how quickly German railway repair forces were able to make a destroyed line operable again:

11 July 1941 - 4th Pz Group reaches Porkhov;

18 July 1941 - 1st DRG train arrives same

23 August 1941 - 4th Pz Group reaches Luga;

23 August 1941 - as above

08 August 1941 - 16th Armee reaches Staraya Russa;

29 September 1941 - as above

</font>

[Rolend]

Sure Blashy I could see it going down either way, it is hard to tell how things would of shifted after Pearl Harbor had England already fallen. Since that is a 'what if' type of thing I have no problem with the US declearing war in the game, more fun that way anyway

EDIT ADDED: But I don't think it would of happened tell after Pearl Harbor in any case.

[Blashy]

Oh must definitly AFTER Pearl Harbour, probably in the spring of 42 after US Govt propaganda managed to sell a war vs. Germany, hehe.

[Rolend]

Yea if Bush could sell Iraq to America then FDR a MUCH more popular Pres certinly sells it. Ok you have changed my mind on this issue.

[dicedtomato]

It's easier if I itemize all the mistakes here:

Rolend: Hitler was itching to avenge Versailles. Guess which country he wanted to take revenge upon? Not Russia - they practically surrendered in 1917. It was that good ol' German punching bag, also known as France.

Lars/Blashy: You're kidding about German logistics, right? Everything I've ever read on Barbarossa makes clear that German units were desperately short of vehicles, fuel and manpower. I'm also curious about your definition of "genius". Apparently a sign of logistics genius is dispersing your armies across a front stretching from Riga to Rostov, not stockpiling adequate supplies, and relying on 36 different brands of trucks, each of which required its own set of spare parts (the downside of looting).

Blashy: Are you aware of the deep loathing that many Soviets felt for Stalin's regime? Why do you think so many soldiers were eager to surrender in the beginning - until they realized that captivity meant almost certain death? I expect some Russians would have fought on if Moscow fell, but the dictatorship was already reaping the results of decades of terrorizing its own people.

Diced Tomato

[Guest Mike]

Lars here's some other info from that article:

The assault on Moscow in 1942 failed primarily because the Germans were not able to extend their standard gauge line east of Smolensk fast enough. While ample quantities of supplies were available for the first two phases of the German attack against Moscow, the German rail transportation system was not able to sustain the shipment of needed military supplies for the third and final assault phase.

All the examples you give are in the north of Russia, where Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian railway workers enthusastically aided the advancing Germans. These areas also had a lot of standard guage tracks that did not need conversion!!

Tthey are the BEST the Germans did, and I suspect are not typical of the rest of the country.

Diced it is true that the Nazi's were intiially welcomed with open arms - and that many Soviets wanted to help them get rid of Stalin - eg the infamous Gen Vlassov was commander of the 20th Army and Hero of hte Soviet Union!!

But the Nazi's handed Soviet Propaganda unprecedented material with which to change the minds of eth "common folk" - by 1942 no-one was going to be anythign except violently anti-Nazi, and "Uncle Jo" was a good guy.

Certainly the NKVD weer still active such as at he meatgrinder of Stalingrad, but one should not confuse people's wish to stay alive with a desire to overthrow the order!

Germany ruined all chance of getting most Russians to rise up against Stalin within 6 months of invading. Where local commanders we re more enlightened than Hitler there weer remarkable results with anti-soviet Russians - one area formed 4 infantry and 1 tank brigade and kept it's transport net entirely clear of partisan activities for years.

But whenever hitler got wind of such things his racism made sure he stomped on them.

the German people may have sought revenge against France, but for Hitler the real enemy was untermensch of all varieties - jews, gypsies, and slavs.

[ June 21, 2006, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Rolend:

Stalin O of course they would have, had Germany done so, I am just supposing that after the fall of England Hitler would of figured there was no need to but you never know what that loon would do.

There was no need for him to declare war in the real world either, so I see no reason to assume he'd behave any differently in our hypothetical one.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

It's easier if I itemize all the mistakes here:

Rolend: Hitler was itching to avenge Versailles. Guess which country he wanted to take revenge upon? Not Russia - they practically surrendered in 1917. It was that good ol' German punching bag, also known as France.

Lars/Blashy: You're kidding about German logistics, right? Everything I've ever read on Barbarossa makes clear that German units were desperately short of vehicles, fuel and manpower. I'm also curious about your definition of "genius". Apparently a sign of logistics genius is dispersing your armies across a front stretching from Riga to Rostov, not stockpiling adequate supplies, and relying on 36 different brands of trucks, each of which required its own set of spare parts (the downside of looting).

Blashy: Are you aware of the deep loathing that many Soviets felt for Stalin's regime? Why do you think so many soldiers were eager to surrender in the beginning - until they realized that captivity meant almost certain death? I expect some Russians would have fought on if Moscow fell, but the dictatorship was already reaping the results of decades of terrorizing its own people.

Diced Tomato

DT, logistics were good in many ways, Germany was a small Army and still managed to push pretty far EVEN with such horrible decisions from the top.

Man, take a break and relax, anytime anyone says one thing that Germany did good you're starting to sound like JJR.

Look we all hate what they stood for, but that does not mean they were totally inept, the war lasted 6 years.

[dicedtomato]

Actually, Blashy, I was going to suggest that you take a break. You're here 24/7 defending the historical realism of SC2. Such a futile task must be exhausting!

I don't appreciate being confused with Rambo. You don't need a Universal Translator from Star Trek to understand what I'm saying. I indeed recognize the immense skills of the German military. However, they were not good at everything, which seems to be a fact that some SC2 players don't understand. Nor is it reflected in the game, which is why the U.S. army isn't much bigger than Poland's, but the Germans can take the North Pole in 1941.

Diced Tomato