I'm really thinking that house rules within a computer game are a more trouble than they are worth. They just end up sparking more controversy than anything.
I haven't used my finns for anything more than bombardment...as for the FW-190/Bf-109 bit...I like to have em both...call me weird. As far as production costs go...there may have been a man-hour question to deal with. Besides, the 109 was much superior to the 190 at high altitudes. Replacements for the 109...like the Me-309 didn't produce enough improvement in performance to warrant a change over in production.
As far as the Italians building German designed tanks...doubt it would happen...besides national pride..italy only got the steel that Germany spared them...most of it coming from Sweden.
Finn House Rule question
-
Lokioftheaesir
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Oz
- Contact:
DgaadOriginally posted by dgaad
Allowing any nation to produce whatever weapon it wants as soon as it was historically designed essentially allows a game to be played with complete historical hindsight. This is unrealistic.
Using your argument, there is no reason why the ME262 could not have been mass-produced in 1942, the Spitfire in 1938 instead of the Hurricaine, the Sherman 90 instead of the 76 in 1942, the T-34 instead of the T-28 in 1940 instead of 1941, the Mustang instead of the Thunderbolt in 1942, and on and on and so on and so forth.
I'm afraid that the relative capabilities of a weapon were not so easily known at the time design was completed, and nations and military forces were not so willing to stake their existence on an unknown quantity. This fear/reluctance, or just plain ignorance, had decisive impact on the outcome of the war.
Unless a game designer puts in some limitations on the production choices that can be made by players to reflect these considerations, you have a "labratory" simulation with very little connection to the period it is trying to simulate, and it therefore becomes a boring numbers and stats game.
You of course are entitled to your opinion.
In Wir i swap all fighter factories to FW109 (but for one or two 109f factories)because the design is already in the air and proven.
I do not produce HE177's as they had many troubles.
I change all AFVs to Pz 111h cause it is proven.
I produce few if any Elephants as the design had troubles.
So you see i limmit my 'Historical hindsight' to what are reliable designs.
If i cannot do this then what do you suggest??
No altering of production types?
That is what you are saying. So why do you look at production at all? Why bother even talking about it?
Just let the game produce what it wants is what you are saying. While you are at it why not let the game move all the ground units just how they were moved historically?? That is the same thing is it not. Or is Guderian moving NW instead of SW OK (and the momentous changes that causes) But if Der Fuhrer says More 190's instead of 'Let it be'
then that is 'not' OK.
What is this problem to modifying production in objectively possible ways but there is no objection to sending armies off in all directions
in also possible ways?
Rationalise your logic (political/industrial alternatives are no less possible than spacial/millitary)
Loki
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
Its interesting to see what would have happened had all political and economic decisions been completely rational during the war. As you know, many many mistakes were made by both sides in political, economic and military spheres.Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir
Dgaad
You of course are entitled to your opinion.
In Wir i swap all fighter factories to FW109 (but for one or two 109f factories)because the design is already in the air and proven.
I do not produce HE177's as they had many troubles.
I change all AFVs to Pz 111h cause it is proven.
I produce few if any Elephants as the design had troubles.
So you see i limmit my 'Historical hindsight' to what are reliable designs.
If i cannot do this then what do you suggest??
No altering of production types?
That is what you are saying. So why do you look at production at all? Why bother even talking about it?
Just let the game produce what it wants is what you are saying. While you are at it why not let the game move all the ground units just how they were moved historically?? That is the same thing is it not. Or is Guderian moving NW instead of SW OK (and the momentous changes that causes) But if Der Fuhrer says More 190's instead of 'Let it be'
then that is 'not' OK.
What is this problem to modifying production in objectively possible ways but there is no objection to sending armies off in all directions
in also possible ways?
Rationalise your logic (political/industrial alternatives are no less possible than spacial/millitary)
Loki
You are wrong about what I am saying. I said that "some" limitations should be put in if it is to be a game that reflects the history of the period. In other games, I've recommended that players have the option of turning off all historical limitations if they want to play that way. I don't like to play that way because I think its no longer a historical wargame, its just a pure wargame with history and other kinds of limitations completely dispensed with. Its more like chess.
Your arguments to support the idea that you should be allowed to switch production to the equipment with the best numerical stats as soon as its available is not a historical argument. Its a play-style and preference argument.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. 
In my humble opinion, switching all production to one type of weapon is a squeeze designed to maximize a player's advantage without the need for superior play: If you switch to all FW-190 production, the VVS cannot hope to challenge you in the air until 1944; the Red Army will be slaughtered by waves of Ju-87g's protected by hordes of FW-190's, while the fleets of He-177's pound your factories into dust. This is exactly what happened to me when I agreed to play a 'no restrictions on production' game some years ago; the only reason why I survived into late 1943 was that my opponent kept driving his Pz corp's deep into my rear area, these corps were promptly cut off and killed (perhaps I should say Panzer Corpses...).
I think that the only reasonable thing to do is for individual players to decide amongst themselves what, if any limits or guidelines to place on production. When I play the Germans, I build Me-109's and Fw-190's in a 50/50 mix. I set 6 afv factories to build one type of tank, and the remaining 3 factories to build a second type of tank. As the Soviets, I do pretty much the same thing; 50/50 fighter production, no more than 5 or 6 KV factories, build T-60's with 1 or 2 factories, and everything else is T-34's. I never switch what class of equipment a factory is building (fighter, tank, ground attack, Stug, you get the picture). If players want to do things differently, that's fine. Different players have different styles, there is no right or wrong, WIR is just a game (I think...).
Please excuse the length of this rant, but I've read arguments from both sides, and I don't think this debate can be won by anyone. And on that note, I will shut up about the subject...
I think that the only reasonable thing to do is for individual players to decide amongst themselves what, if any limits or guidelines to place on production. When I play the Germans, I build Me-109's and Fw-190's in a 50/50 mix. I set 6 afv factories to build one type of tank, and the remaining 3 factories to build a second type of tank. As the Soviets, I do pretty much the same thing; 50/50 fighter production, no more than 5 or 6 KV factories, build T-60's with 1 or 2 factories, and everything else is T-34's. I never switch what class of equipment a factory is building (fighter, tank, ground attack, Stug, you get the picture). If players want to do things differently, that's fine. Different players have different styles, there is no right or wrong, WIR is just a game (I think...).
Please excuse the length of this rant, but I've read arguments from both sides, and I don't think this debate can be won by anyone. And on that note, I will shut up about the subject...
-
Lokioftheaesir
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Oz
- Contact:
DgaadOriginally posted by dgaad
Its interesting to see what would have happened had all political and economic decisions been completely rational during the war. As you know, many many mistakes were made by both sides in political, economic and military spheres.
You are wrong about what I am saying. I said that "some" limitations should be put in if it is to be a game that reflects the history of the period. In other games, I've recommended that players have the option of turning off all historical limitations if they want to play that way. I don't like to play that way because I think its no longer a historical wargame, its just a pure wargame with history and other kinds of limitations completely dispensed with. Its more like chess.
Your arguments to support the idea that you should be allowed to switch production to the equipment with the best numerical stats as soon as its available is not a historical argument. Its a play-style and preference argument.
--------------
Dgaad
quote
"Its interesting to see what would have happened had all political and economic decisions been completely rational during the war."
I only used the term 'rational' in 'rationalise your logic'. But yes, rationalising production, modified by historical perspective is what i aim for.
'Objectively possible' is the common term i refer to. I seem to be the only one who ever uses that term in relation to what is posible in production.
---------------------
"Your arguments to support the idea that you should be allowed to switch production to the equipment with the best numerical stats as soon as its available is not a historical argument."
------
The Game starts with the FW190 already in production and units in the field so your premise in that area is void. If i switch production to PZ3h as soon as it is available it is because the PZ3g is already proven. By your arguement i would switch to elephants or Pz4g as soon as they are available,, I do not, once again your premise is void.
I modify production logically as i see it. I do the same on the battlefield. The alternative is to produce equipment that has obvious superior counterparts and to stick the 6th army in Stalingrad so it can be cut off.
Is that what you do?
--------------------
"In other games, I've recommended that players have the option of turning off all historical limitations if they want to play that way. I don't like to play that way because I think its no longer a historical wargame, its just a pure wargame with history and other kinds of limitations completely dispensed with. Its more like chess."
--
Who asked you to enter any of the production screens? Were you forced? If you want to play with historical production then no-one is stopping you. But please do not try to tell me why i cannot alter what the game allows as valid objective alternatives. You must first prove that they are NOT valid alteratives.
---------------------
"I said that "some" limitations should be put in if it is to be a game that reflects the history of the period"
---
And who would decide on these limitations? You?
We are given the GodLike power to do what is objectively possible. Most (but not all)of the options we are given are possible. Those who try to limmit the options because of what happened in reality fail to note that the other options were also possible.
Besides my self-imposed limmitations what exact
production options in the game are you saying
were not possible. (thats 'possible'.. If i withdraw the german army to the Kassel area in 1941 it is entirely possible and NO-ONE would argue that i could do it. Are you saying that
it is 'more' possible than a production change to FW190's?)
This is what i mean by 'Rationalise your Logic'
--------------------
"Its a play-style and preference argument."
----
Respectfully....Crap. That is your fall back, not my reason. If i decided to switch all production to 109's and Pz2's would you still make that statement? Even though it is just as 'ahistorical' I suspect you use it because you can find no other faults in my arguement.
Lets treat this as a proposal of a logical statement. I made my statement, you must disprove it.
Loki
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
Loki : you seem to be taking all of this too personally.
Removing historical restrictions on production or anything else removes the game from being a historical simulation. Thats all. Remove production limitations, and you no longer have as good a historical simulation in regards to economics.
WIR is a great game. It does not have military deployment limitations to the extent the Germans and Russians had them historically. Nothing to prevent you from using Rumanian troops near Leningrad. I don't find this historical, but its a minor, extremely minor, issue in this respect.
Changing historical production limitations in WIR, however, has a fantastically unbalancing effect on the game, and is massively unhistorical. You are free to play that way and find opponents who like to play that way. Have fun. Just don't fool yourself or them into thinking that such a play style is still a good simulation of history. Its not.
Removing historical restrictions on production or anything else removes the game from being a historical simulation. Thats all. Remove production limitations, and you no longer have as good a historical simulation in regards to economics.
WIR is a great game. It does not have military deployment limitations to the extent the Germans and Russians had them historically. Nothing to prevent you from using Rumanian troops near Leningrad. I don't find this historical, but its a minor, extremely minor, issue in this respect.
Changing historical production limitations in WIR, however, has a fantastically unbalancing effect on the game, and is massively unhistorical. You are free to play that way and find opponents who like to play that way. Have fun. Just don't fool yourself or them into thinking that such a play style is still a good simulation of history. Its not.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up.
-
Lokioftheaesir
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Oz
- Contact:
DgaadOriginally posted by dgaad
Loki : you seem to be taking all of this too personally.
Removing historical restrictions on production or anything else removes the game from being a historical simulation. Thats all. Remove production limitations, and you no longer have as good a historical simulation in regards to economics.
WIR is a great game. It does not have military deployment limitations to the extent the Germans and Russians had them historically. Nothing to prevent you from using Rumanian troops near Leningrad. I don't find this historical, but its a minor, extremely minor, issue in this respect.
Changing historical production limitations in WIR, however, has a fantastically unbalancing effect on the game, and is massively unhistorical. You are free to play that way and find opponents who like to play that way. Have fun. Just don't fool yourself or them into thinking that such a play style is still a good simulation of history. Its not.
I must inform you my friend that i in no way take any of this personally, it is an interesting arguement to me and that is all. Would you like to discuse 'Moral absolutes' or 'Machine Intelligence'? I'm easy.
I dont know you from a bar of soap. How could i take anything you say personally?
---------------
"Just don't fool yourself or them into thinking that such a play style is still a good simulation of history. Its not."
Just do'nt fool yourself that you know anything about what i would be fooled by or what is my interpretation of a good simulation of history.
Wir is not a simulation of History. If you want that then read a history of the east front.
WiR is a simulation of 'what is possible' within objective reality.
I can leave production to the game and still withdraw the german army to Kassel in '41.
Is that a good simulation of History?
'Them'???? Are you saying i'm trying win support?
I dont need peers to support my statemnts Dgaad.
I'm a stand alone mechanism.
Loki
Anyway, i'm logging off now so feel free to have the last word. Maybe Ed will reply to these posts,
at least he uses specific facts and examples to support his side of an arguement. Not just opinions.
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
Hi guys,
you were quite active while i was sleeping.
I like it when i hear about historical reality.
- not on such a lenghtscale -
ok for replaying a battle (say, Zitadelle for example) but not in the long run.
Didi it occur to you that "historical" behaviour" were in fact adapted to results on the fields ?
like :
why were so many StugIII produced ? because it was cheaper to produce than tanks and they were badly needed then;
PzII were ok as long as they didn't have to face T34 well commanded. Once there were too many of these, Germans had to start producing massively good tanks. Me262 could actually have been into the field (or the game) one full year earlier if Hitler hadn't wanted to make a bomber out of it.
German production could have been much more in 1940 and 1941 if Hitler had mobilized all resources (level of output for 40-41 is ridiculous). it began to increase when Speer became reichminister for production. Delocalizing production in 43 and the disruption (yet highest level attained) that came with it is also an adaptation to allied bombings.
So, my point is, if the situation on the field had been different, "historical" behaviour would have also changed.
So yes, i scrap Bf (not Me) 109 as soon as i can.
yes i invade china with mandchurian troops and invade India through China (oops, wrong game, but same discussion can take place in Pacific War : why allow troops to be played in China when historically they were only a burden and had no impact on general course of action).
i would also love to be able to play the german parachute corps in Russia (also ahistorical) since Hitler grounded these troops after Merkur. Also be able to intervene with the Kriegsmarine (send the Tirpitz and sink the Merchants convoys ... they tried it actually). or bomb Leningrad with german ships ...
Also , on the Me262 subject, if i remenber, WIR allows you to produce me262 since start of the war. simply there is no output but production may be started earlier - like it could have been.
Conclusion : play it like you like it. i like it ahistorical.
best regards.
you were quite active while i was sleeping.
I like it when i hear about historical reality.
- not on such a lenghtscale -
ok for replaying a battle (say, Zitadelle for example) but not in the long run.
Didi it occur to you that "historical" behaviour" were in fact adapted to results on the fields ?
like :
why were so many StugIII produced ? because it was cheaper to produce than tanks and they were badly needed then;
PzII were ok as long as they didn't have to face T34 well commanded. Once there were too many of these, Germans had to start producing massively good tanks. Me262 could actually have been into the field (or the game) one full year earlier if Hitler hadn't wanted to make a bomber out of it.
German production could have been much more in 1940 and 1941 if Hitler had mobilized all resources (level of output for 40-41 is ridiculous). it began to increase when Speer became reichminister for production. Delocalizing production in 43 and the disruption (yet highest level attained) that came with it is also an adaptation to allied bombings.
So, my point is, if the situation on the field had been different, "historical" behaviour would have also changed.
So yes, i scrap Bf (not Me) 109 as soon as i can.
yes i invade china with mandchurian troops and invade India through China (oops, wrong game, but same discussion can take place in Pacific War : why allow troops to be played in China when historically they were only a burden and had no impact on general course of action).
i would also love to be able to play the german parachute corps in Russia (also ahistorical) since Hitler grounded these troops after Merkur. Also be able to intervene with the Kriegsmarine (send the Tirpitz and sink the Merchants convoys ... they tried it actually). or bomb Leningrad with german ships ...
Also , on the Me262 subject, if i remenber, WIR allows you to produce me262 since start of the war. simply there is no output but production may be started earlier - like it could have been.
Conclusion : play it like you like it. i like it ahistorical.
best regards.
Ben
Verzage ni
Verzage ni
Thats just the point, you don't know what a historical simulation is. You've used historical arguments like "the FW190 was in production in 1942, so there's nothing ahistorical about scrapping all 109 production and switching everything over to 190 production". That's not a historical argument. Production limitations are there for historical reasons. Remove them or change them, and you remove a historical aspect of the game. Why is that so hard to understand?Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir
Just do'nt fool yourself that you know anything about what i would be fooled by or what is my interpretation of a good simulation of history.
Sorry, but WIR is a military-historical simulation. Thats why its about a period of history, that's why the units are from the Soviet Union and Fascist Germany, nations which no longer exist. Reading a history is not getting a military simulation. Only board wargames and computer wargames based on history can do that.
Wir is not a simulation of History. If you want that then read a history of the east front.
That's an interesting definition of the game. I haven't been to the "What is Possible Within Objective Reality" shelf of my local computer game store lately. I'm not quite sure what you think you mean by "objective reality".
WiR is a simulation of 'what is possible' within objective reality.
"Them" referred to your opponents.
'Them'???? Are you saying i'm trying win support?
I dont need peers to support my statemnts Dgaad.
I'm a stand alone mechanism.
It is not an opinon to say that to the extent you remove historical biases and limitations from a game, you then lessen the accuracy of the military historical simulation. That is in fact a purely logical statement.
Maybe Ed will reply to these posts,
at least he uses specific facts and examples to support his side of an arguement. Not just opinions.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up.
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir
""(you) ** (me)
-------------------------------
Loki, please use the supported quote mechanism rather than making up your own. It makes responding to your posts tedious.
A cheap shot, you and i both know that that if Hitler had of ordered it then Kurt Tanks'190 design could of easily been produced by Me with only a couple of months retooling. You seem to be stuck on this point.
I'm stuck on this point because its a lot closer to the truth and reality of military production in Germany of the time than your statements are, I think. It all may seem simple and doable to you, but that's only because we have the perfect hindsight of more than 50 years of review and analysis.
Face the 'objective' facts that there is nothing but pride stopping such a retooling, in hitler's germany (and everywhere) fear outguns pride every time.
I *said* pride would stop this from happening, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how Germany could have supplied tanks to Italy and maintain their own forces when they were losing tanks in the USSR faster than they could build them.
Are you saying that Me 'would' not produce the 190
First, I'm not interested in starting the ME vs. FW argument over again. DGAAD is doing a good job with that argument, I'll leave that to him.
Second I'm not saying it was necessarily impossible to build just FW190s, but that the political reality of how German war production was managed made the possiblity of Hitler ordering the end of ME production in favor of the FW a virtual impossibility. Hitler did not take direct control of war production, he did not micromanage it, so decisions were left to a poor system of procurement, which included a lot of good old boy politics. Besides, the Luftwaffe would have fought any attempt to stop using the Me plane because the ME was a better high altitude fighter than the FW.
Hitler generally did not micromanage German war production. He simply couldn't do that as he had very little understanding of economics.
One of the things you find with Hitler was his focus on dramatics, theatrics, and psychological impact. He did on occasion latch on to certain items of war materiel that were being produced. He also took a hand in design of some shells and fortifications, because he fancied himself an architect and had a need to prove to himself and his underlings that he grasped things "ordinary men" couldn't.
One of the things Hitler latched on to was the ME262. To him, having clouds of fast jet fighters did not appeal to him at first. He forbade production of the ME262 as a jet fighter, and ordered that only the slower bomber version be produced. He wanted to have a weapon that would acheive a devastating psychological effect on the enemy populations : a jet bomber that could not be shot down. Naturally, this decision was disastrous for German air defenses, and delayed production of the ME262, a weapon that had the potential to turn the tide of the air war, about 1 1/2 critical years (from mid 42 to the beginning of 44).
Another thing that Hitler got involved in were the immense tank designs such as the Ferdinand and the Elefant. Both of these designs were tactically stupid, as was proved after their commitment to battle, but Hitler didn't concern himself with that. He wanted a psychological effect weapon of an immense tank that was impervious to enemy shells. He wouldn't listen to advisors who predicted these monsters would get bogged down, set on fire, and due to fuel restrictions not have enough range to have any significant impact on a battle. Germany wasted many resources on these weapons that would have been better committed to the successful Panther and Tiger designs.
There are other examples. Suffice to say that Hitlers involvement in war production choices was generally disastrous for Germany.
One of the things you find with Hitler was his focus on dramatics, theatrics, and psychological impact. He did on occasion latch on to certain items of war materiel that were being produced. He also took a hand in design of some shells and fortifications, because he fancied himself an architect and had a need to prove to himself and his underlings that he grasped things "ordinary men" couldn't.
One of the things Hitler latched on to was the ME262. To him, having clouds of fast jet fighters did not appeal to him at first. He forbade production of the ME262 as a jet fighter, and ordered that only the slower bomber version be produced. He wanted to have a weapon that would acheive a devastating psychological effect on the enemy populations : a jet bomber that could not be shot down. Naturally, this decision was disastrous for German air defenses, and delayed production of the ME262, a weapon that had the potential to turn the tide of the air war, about 1 1/2 critical years (from mid 42 to the beginning of 44).
Another thing that Hitler got involved in were the immense tank designs such as the Ferdinand and the Elefant. Both of these designs were tactically stupid, as was proved after their commitment to battle, but Hitler didn't concern himself with that. He wanted a psychological effect weapon of an immense tank that was impervious to enemy shells. He wouldn't listen to advisors who predicted these monsters would get bogged down, set on fire, and due to fuel restrictions not have enough range to have any significant impact on a battle. Germany wasted many resources on these weapons that would have been better committed to the successful Panther and Tiger designs.
There are other examples. Suffice to say that Hitlers involvement in war production choices was generally disastrous for Germany.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up.
Well, I wouldn't say that Ferdinand/Elefant was tactically stupid vehicle. It was designed to be long range gunnery platform that would be impervious to enemy counterfire. It was the ultimate defensive tank destroyer for long range sniping in open terrain. Putting those Ferdinands without any anti-infantry capability to spearhead the attack in Kursk was extremely stupid tactically..and shows that German commander (Model, IIRC) didn't have a clue about what the vehicle was designed for.Originally posted by dgaad
Another thing that Hitler got involved in were the immense tank designs such as the Ferdinand and the Elefant. Both of these designs were tactically stupid, as was proved after their commitment to battle, but Hitler didn't concern himself with that. He wanted a psychological effect weapon of an immense tank that was impervious to enemy shells. He wouldn't listen to advisors who predicted these monsters would get bogged down, set on fire, and due to fuel restrictions not have enough range to have any significant impact on a battle. Germany wasted many resources on these weapons that would have been better committed to the successful Panther and Tiger designs.
There are other examples. Suffice to say that Hitlers involvement in war production choices was generally disastrous for Germany.
So, I think the vehicle was tactically very sound one...it was just misused first. Later, in defensive battles, few Elefants proved to be very useful AT platforms, albeit still prone to technical failures due sheer weight. But I think the vehicle got it's bad reputation unfairly, due the bad performance in Kursk, doing things it was not designed to do.
Cheers,
M.S.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-
woow,
how could I missed that one ?
Guys,
some of you missed some important points :
1. Loki and Ed have right to take it personal and maybe a bit to serious for a good reason - such discussions with exactly the same arguments arise here every few weeks. So I suppose they get a bit tired of writing same things over and over again. sure, nobody forces them to answer, but unfortunately for them they are kind of people who cannot leave certain things uncommented.
2. House Rules were put together by Lorenzo for one purpose only - to make live easier when you face a new opponent. Instead of discussing every detail before play it is enough you say you play under House Rules. I personally found it very handy, although I tend to disagree with most of those rules. And if one finds particular rule wrong there is nothing stopping you from changing it ( like I did with interdiction rule, BTW I hope we agreed max 2 interdictions on single target per turn, didnt we?)
3. Show me the place where is said that House Rules are mandatory ? For Gods sake, they arent !!!
4. If somebody doesnt like those rules, write down your own and post them here. So we can choose. So far I only saw people saying they are wrong - none has put enough work into writing new ones.
5. Changing production is an option given to players by Gary, it is not a bug.
6. Game balance has nothing to do with historical realism - historicaly this campaign wasnt balanced at all.
enough for now
Maciej
how could I missed that one ?
Guys,
some of you missed some important points :
1. Loki and Ed have right to take it personal and maybe a bit to serious for a good reason - such discussions with exactly the same arguments arise here every few weeks. So I suppose they get a bit tired of writing same things over and over again. sure, nobody forces them to answer, but unfortunately for them they are kind of people who cannot leave certain things uncommented.
2. House Rules were put together by Lorenzo for one purpose only - to make live easier when you face a new opponent. Instead of discussing every detail before play it is enough you say you play under House Rules. I personally found it very handy, although I tend to disagree with most of those rules. And if one finds particular rule wrong there is nothing stopping you from changing it ( like I did with interdiction rule, BTW I hope we agreed max 2 interdictions on single target per turn, didnt we?)
3. Show me the place where is said that House Rules are mandatory ? For Gods sake, they arent !!!
4. If somebody doesnt like those rules, write down your own and post them here. So we can choose. So far I only saw people saying they are wrong - none has put enough work into writing new ones.
5. Changing production is an option given to players by Gary, it is not a bug.
6. Game balance has nothing to do with historical realism - historicaly this campaign wasnt balanced at all.
enough for now
Maciej
Think first, fight afterwards, the soldier's art.
I agree with you to some extent. The use at Kursk was about the worst you can imagine for this vehicle. As I recall, some of them were refitted with ports so an MG 34 could be used, but this was only after the disaster at Kursk.Originally posted by Sardaukar
Well, I wouldn't say that Ferdinand/Elefant was tactically stupid vehicle. It was designed to be long range gunnery platform that would be impervious to enemy counterfire. It was the ultimate defensive tank destroyer for long range sniping in open terrain. Putting those Ferdinands without any anti-infantry capability to spearhead the attack in Kursk was extremely stupid tactically..and shows that German commander (Model, IIRC) didn't have a clue about what the vehicle was designed for.
So, I think the vehicle was tactically very sound one...it was just misused first. Later, in defensive battles, few Elefants proved to be very useful AT platforms, albeit still prone to technical failures due sheer weight. But I think the vehicle got it's bad reputation unfairly, due the bad performance in Kursk, doing things it was not designed to do.
Cheers,
M.S.
As designed, the Ferdinand was a "decent" anti-tank platform. But an 88 from long range was just as effective at KO'ing enemy tanks, less of a target, and about 1000 times cheaper to build and maintain (no exagerration here). These "monster" vehicles are great to have in a tactical wargame, but the effect on a war economy is not optimal. The also had only about a 90 mile range and used copious amounts of POL for just about everything.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up.
I totally disagree with this. The campaign was balanced in that when it began the Germans had about a 50/50 chance of winning within 2 years, and thereafter 25% chance of forcing a favorable settlement and avoiding a defeat. It was only after the Normandy landings that it was completely hopeless for the Germans, because at that moment Stalin would never have agreed to a peace with the Allies on the continent and his army was by then vastly superior to the German army.Originally posted by czerpak
6. Game balance has nothing to do with historical realism - historicaly this campaign wasnt balanced at all.
enough for now
Maciej
There are many things the Germans could have collectively done better that weren't outside the realm of possiblity even given the historical context : the failure to prepare for the first winter is only one of many many examples. Strategically, human and material resources were on the side of the Soviets, but it takes (and did in fact take) some years for this kind of advantage to play out -- years in which the economically inferior power can win, and this too has happened in history.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up.
-
Mark_BookGuy
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 11:51 pm
- Location: Chicago
Exporting PZ's
I *said* pride would stop this from happening, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how Germany could have supplied tanks to Italy and maintain their own forces when they were losing tanks in the USSR faster than they could build them.
As I recall the Germans supplied a number of their allies with tanks. All my reference books are packed up for my Chicago move, so I can't cite soures. If the question is why didn't the Italians build PZ's under license, they probably weren't able to. For a very good look at their procurement and industrial capabilities see MacGregor Knox's Hitler's Italian Allies: Royal Armed Forces, Fascist Regime, and the War of 1940-43.
Mark
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
I think we can respectfully agree to disagree. First : how you calculate the odds ? Second : if there was solely Normandy which made Germans lost, why the hell they didnt win before june 1944 ? Certainly not because they were stupid. It is well known fact that the war in Europe was won by Soviets. Stalin wouldnt go for settlement even without allies in second front for one but important reason : he planned war with Germans before Barbarossa. Hitler made him a favour ( allow me a shorthand will you?) atacking first : now Germans were agressors so it was politicaly convinient for Stalin.Originally posted by dgaad
I totally disagree with this. The campaign was balanced in that when it began the Germans had about a 50/50 chance of winning within 2 years, and thereafter 25% chance of forcing a favorable settlement and avoiding a defeat. It was only after the Normandy landings that it was completely hopeless for the Germans, because at that moment Stalin would never have agreed to a peace with the Allies on the continent and his army was by then vastly superior to the German army.
There are many things the Germans could have collectively done better that weren't outside the realm of possiblity even given the historical context : the failure to prepare for the first winter is only one of many many examples. Strategically, human and material resources were on the side of the Soviets, but it takes (and did in fact take) some years for this kind of advantage to play out -- years in which the economically inferior power can win, and this too has happened in history.
And example with winter doesnt sound to me - in a long history before WW2 they were many armies invading Russia ( Poles among them), reaching Moscow, even taken it and still failed to win. None was able to survive winters there, so why do you think it was possible for Wehrmacht. First of all they didnt even dare to think ( with rare exceptions like Guderian) they would spend a winter at front so how could they prepared ?
Maciej
Think first, fight afterwards, the soldier's art.
I'm undecided as to whether Germany would have forced a Soviet surrender by taking Moscow. My major concerns deal with the Soviet's ability to receive aid from the other allies, and the road and rail network east of Moscow. I've no detailed maps to give me the answers. Could supplies sent to Murmansk make it east of the Volga without interference from German units around Moscow? Could those rail lines have been disrupted? The greatest allied contribution to Russia wasn't the planes or the tanks sent....it was trucks. Trucks mass produced in the US. These trucks made the Soviets mobile..far more mobile than the Germans who still used millions of horses. More often than not...supply wins the battle.
In early 1942, Stalin had the dissatisfaction of seeing the Germans advancing as if there had been no winter counter offensive.
Case Blue was the death knell of any German hopes to destroy the Soviet state. Although we can argue back and forth about what the fall of Moscow might portend...we can't argue that it was anything less than a huge center of communications, production, and population and would have been a serious loss.
Here we find Hitler at odds with the general staff, and at his worst strategic reasoning.
The D-day landings weren't the reason for the final failure in Russia...Case Blue was.
In early 1942, Stalin had the dissatisfaction of seeing the Germans advancing as if there had been no winter counter offensive.
Case Blue was the death knell of any German hopes to destroy the Soviet state. Although we can argue back and forth about what the fall of Moscow might portend...we can't argue that it was anything less than a huge center of communications, production, and population and would have been a serious loss.
Here we find Hitler at odds with the general staff, and at his worst strategic reasoning.
The D-day landings weren't the reason for the final failure in Russia...Case Blue was.
Jesus ...., with all respect. This closet germanism is allways killing me.
Moscow - my concern is if Germans were able to hold Moscow and for how long ?Originally posted by Preuss
I'm undecided as to whether Germany would have forced a Soviet surrender by taking Moscow. My major concerns deal with the Soviet's ability to receive aid from the other allies, and the road and rail network east of Moscow. I've no detailed maps to give me the answers. Could supplies sent to Murmansk make it east of the Volga without interference from German units around Moscow? Could those rail lines have been disrupted? The greatest allied contribution to Russia wasn't the planes or the tanks sent....it was trucks. Trucks mass produced in the US. These trucks made the Soviets mobile..far more mobile than the Germans who still used millions of horses. More often than not...supply wins the battle.
In early 1942, Stalin had the dissatisfaction of seeing the Germans advancing as if there had been no winter counter offensive.
Case Blue was the death knell of any German hopes to destroy the Soviet state. Although we can argue back and forth about what the fall of Moscow might portend...we can't argue that it was anything less than a huge center of communications, production, and population and would have been a serious loss.
Here we find Hitler at odds with the general staff, and at his worst strategic reasoning.
The D-day landings weren't the reason for the final failure in Russia...Case Blue was.
Trucks - you are absolutly right and not only trucks. Minerals, steel, fuel for planes, locomotives ( AFAIR soviets received 4 times more then produced themselves). This allowed them to focus on tanks.
Aid was transported also thru Middle East and Far East. I cant say if these roads were sufficient or not.
Main question : one could beat soviets but I dont know what could make them surrender.
Think first, fight afterwards, the soldier's art.