Originally posted by Charles22:
Ed Cogburn: Haven't you heard how the British, themselves, said that
they could've easily lost the entire Middle East basin if they lost at
El Alamein?
But the Brits didn't lose at El Alamein, even though they were nearly out maneuvered there and despite Rommel not being there. The thing is they could afford the losses they sustained at that battle, while the Germans could not. There is a reason why some historians refer to WWII as the ultimate war of attrition.
It could have only happened very early, it would have to have been the Germans making the first attack against the Brits in Africa. I don't believe Rommel could have held together a supply line to allow him to get that far, because until he linked up with German forces in the USSR, he had a tenuous supply line that barely allowed him to field mobile forces at El Alamein. In the meantime, he would have faced resistance from both Brits and Soviets the whole march through the Caucasas.You have to also ignore the benefit of a successful Rommel linking up with the East Front and helping in the attack in Stalingrad etc.
And you're still ignoring my point about distribution of forces and supply. If Rommel was given enough forces to do what you suggest, the invasion of the USSR would have been signficantly restrained, meaning there wouldn't have been German forces near Stalingrad to link up to as many mobile divisions which historically fought in Barbarossa would be with Rommel, and we haven't even mentioned yet how the Germans could hold together a supply line for a large number of units to Rommel that far east via the Med, with the Yanks knocking on his door in west africa, and Brits harassing the seaborne part of his supply line. The Germans could have concentrated on one front or the other, but not a major Mid-East offensive and a major offensive against the USSR simultaneously. The ultimate rule of attrition warfare: When outnumbered, you can't be everywhere at once.
Yes, and the absence of those forces from the theater they historically fought in would have a decisive, but negative, effect on success in that theater.So you see how additional forces in another theatre can play a decisive effect.
As far as wanting to see the other theatres and play them, yes that would be ideal, but I don't think many of us see that as possible with the construction of the game as it is, but even so, that's not a successful counter to the idea of more things poured into NAfrica (or less) having some signifigance. To me, a heavily reinforced NAfrica shouldn't make the Axis dominant there, or worse yet allow a German Southern Front invasion, but it should at least allow the Germans to hold it if wanted (or at least dramatically slow it down).
That's our goal, allow the player to delay advances in these fronts if he's willing to give up these forces from fighting in the USSR.
The bottom line is that if all of the Russian Front were thrown into NAfrica, could the Allies hold it? Not on your life.
Well, sure, but what is the point here? In this case it would mean the German's aren't fighting the Soviets, because all their forces are in the Med and Mid-East. This is a scenario for a War in Europe simulation, not a scenario with the Germans fighting the Soviets, which is what WiR is, and that is what we're talking about here, WiR, not World in Flames.
So, the give and take of units on that front shouldn't work purely for detriment to the Germans with no benefit.
No it should be detrimental to the Germans because they were on the defensive in the West and South, while concentrating on the East. This means they would inevitably lose ground to the Western Allies, thus the Front shatters are one-way.
I agree, that I am playing an East Front game, but the other fronts are included in a vague way are they not? If another front shatters, do I not have to lose tons of replacements and direct untis to bolster that front to the minimum again, thereby weakening the East?
For the most part yes, but remember that a lot of the units that are in the other Fronts show up automatically in the Front, roughly along historical lines. So wholesale movements shouldn't be required after every shatter.
Yeah, as the game is constructed, there in nothing to win (or hold off) on the vague fronts, so like you, I wish to win what is possible to win. Even within game structures, however, I may be more willing to pull back a few divisions to another front earlier, rather than lose the entire front at one time, and then have to scramble to get
units there when rail is limited.
What you're describing here is fine. Move a few units to hold off the shatter for a little longer. That is what we're after. Limited rail is part of the challenge, and like I said, wholesale movement is not
required that much, just make sure to allow your shattered units to rebuild. There is a delay preventing a shatter from occuring immediately after another shatter.
You play the same strategy with the other fronts that you can play on the attack, just within Russia itself. You know...when my positions are holding up really well on defensive places in Russia, I can drain those
areas in order to concentrate where I'm attacking. To say that NAfrica shouldn't benefit from withdrawn forces elsewhere is to not give me any benefit within pulling forces on the East Front itself to benefit what
would otherwise be a limited offensive elsewhere. It's a bit silly.
Not silly to me, the game is about the War in Russia, not North Africa. That is why Gary made the Fronts vague and one-way. The focus is on the East. If you want to fight the war in the Med, get a War in Euorpe simulation. The Fronts were never meant to be "part of the action". They're just placeholders.
It would seem to me it would be quite easy to program. Instead of the formula only shortening the historic timeline of invasions for amounts withdrawn, you have forces added which "lengthen" the invasion timeline. That doesn't call for allowing victory in the Mediterranean or conquering England, but only to slow things down. If I want my massive
adjustments to a front falling in 6/43, to delay it till 1/44, shouldn't I be able to do that? I may not be able to take win in Russia by 6/43, but with less units I "might" be able to do the same job by 1/44. The East Front could benefit enormously by not having the '43 summer offensive stymied by another front falling during it.
Well, as long as your not asking for "reverse shatters", or offensives within the Fronts, then I don't see the problem you're having. If you want to slow down the timeline for a Front to delay the next shatter by adding forces from elsewhere, well believe it or not, that is what we want too.
What we can't do is give you offensives in Fronts (reverse shatters) because that would be a *major* programming job, and Arnaud (the coder) simply doesn't have the time for something like that since there is a long list of bugs still waiting to be dealt with, and I seriously doubt that Matrix would let him make such a huge change anyway, even if he wanted to.
[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited October 28, 2000).]
