Some thoughts

[xwormwood]

After playing my first few games i think that the game needs a bit more political additions and corrections.

Example:

in my last game i played the scenario in which germany joins in 1944 the western allies to fight together against russia.

My thoughts:

First: this scenario should start after a succesful Operation Walküre in June 1944, does anybody agree? I see no way that the western allies would have fought together with a nazi-led germany. But with a free german state which got rid of its brown scum - much more likly, isn't it?

In this case (and in the now existing scenario as well) Norway should be neutral or UK / US controlled.

Why should Germany be allowed to keep control, to be allowed to oppress on on a once free country?

It would be probably better to start a US / UK convoy line toward Germany, wouldn't it?

Germany itself should have the same borders as in pre-Munich conference time (1937, or mabye 1938 with anexed Austria).

Next thought: germany shouldn't be allowed to built unlimited units, because in 1944 / 1945 it was pretty much blooded out, don't forget that in the end there were 15 and 16 years old wearing uniforms. Unthinkable that Germany would be able (or willing) to build new armies. Maintain the existing one, well, ok, but new ones? Even it POWs would be returned from the western allies, it would have still taken pretty much time to form them into fighting units again (if at all).

Another thought:

UK, France, Italy and Germany should be getting pretty much unwilling to fight in Russia after 6 long and bloody years of war. Freeing minor countries should be all you can expect from them, but a land war in Russia after 6 or 7 years of blodshed, well, i don't think that this would have been exceptable in any one of these countries.

In 1945 everyone of them longed for nothing else but peace (and freedom).

Last thought:

When allied forces enter Russia, China (even though not on the map) should be alarmed.

I think this part is absolutly missing right now.

China wouldn't have stood still if the one (and only one) existing communist partner crumbles, because China would be alone after he has gone and probably next in line in the war against communism.

Therefor China should send help whenever the US / the Allies threaten the Soviet to much (scirptet events, like siberian reinforcements).

I think the game (as good as it is) needs more political events. Right now the game plays very much within the 1939-1945 rules of war and politics, but ignores a bit too much what would happen and who would react how after the destruction of nazi germany.

And now the real last thought:

Even the US should get into problems if too many units get slaughtered, because the US aren't the USSR, where losses didn't matter at all.

On the road to moscow there should be somewhere the question "Why fight any longer, why should more of our boys die, do we really need to conquer all of the USSR?" There should be a growing "bring 'em home"-movement, and a Soviet political agenda feedings this movement ("well, we learned our lessons and offering our hand for peace-talks, let us end this unnescessary and bloody war").

I would be very interested to hear if there are any improvements already on the way, or if there are other players out there, who agree or disagree, or who have own ideas.

[ June 04, 2008, 02:42 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[AZGungHo]

Xwormwood,

I played this one too, and had fun knocking the USSR our a few turns before the game ended.

I took it as a fantasy scenario given the fact the it has the US and British forces deployed wrongly in France.

I think some limits on the minor allies is a good idea, but I do think Germany ought to be able to build more armies than they have. I think the fear of the "Red Menace" would have been very motivating.

I also thought the Germans in Norway were serving the allies the same way we allowed the Japanese to remain in charge in Korea and Vietnam till our forces could get there after the war.

Your political ideas are interesting and deserve to be looked into!

[John DiFool the 2nd]

China at the time was still divided-allegedly both Mao and Chiang were "allied" against the Japanese, but the Communists wouldn't have had enough power (or opportunity) to get all POed about Russia being invaded.

[carverrt]

Taking your comments in aggregate, I sense you feel the allies should experience war fatigue. If you agree with that very general summary, it would be interesting to see how that could be accomplished.

You make a good point about the Europeans (including Germany) being at war for too long not to have been effected by manpower drain and social deprivations. But the Americans, are they really susceptible to casualties in 1945 as the Europeans are? Looking for a comparison, I struggle to identify a period in my countries history that we really had to cope with massive casualties. Have you read the Wiki articles on the planned invasions of Japan. Its seems we were prepared to take on a lot more casualties – today in 2008 we are still handing out surplus Purple Hearts that were delivered in 1945 in that face of an invasion of Japan. Not sure, but I think I agree war fatigue would hit the Europeans at 6 or 7 years. Maybe the Americans would feel the same effects by 1947.

Good thoughts. I see the way forward is to suggest concrete ways for war fatigue to be manifested in PDE.

[SeaMonkey]

I don't know Robert, but have you ever read "Citizen Soldiers".

I don't think it was so much war weariness as it may have been quality dilution, a similar effect may ensue.

Reviewing USA's experience in WW2 through the Historians' chronicles, I get the feeling that in the beginning moral and motivation was high.

Leadership, common sense, and combat experience were sorely lacking, ala "An Army at Dawn". Eventually a fine, sharp edged assault force was formed and leadership became very competent, but through attrition of the core veteran group and with a loss of motivation due to the lack of rotation there were some issues.

No doubt, I'm sure with a little foresight and planning for a longer conflict the institutions would have evolved to overcome the shortcomings.

So in conclusion, I would promote the idea that there would have been a reduction in fighting efficiency for the Allies until the attitude shift had been accomplished, perhaps 3 to 6 months.....again refer to 'An A @ D".