Should WITE2 force the Germans into a short war approach?

[timmyab]

I certainly think it should be encouraged.The Germans knew they had to win quickly and they were right.If you allow them too much freedom of action then the obvious strategy is simply not to invade the Soviet Union, which as others have said was clearly their best option.
I think there should be strong VP incentives throughout the game which virtually force the Germans to fight as far into Soviet territory as possible.These VPs wouldn't normally be enough for an outright win, but they would count towards the final score and should be valuable enough to incentivise them to hold ground even when it could make them vulnerable.
If you applied the same idea to the Soviets as well, then assuming equally matched players, the two should roughly cancel out and all you'd be left with is both sides keen to fight as far forward as prudence allows.

[swkuh]

Hope WitE 2.0 improves the play of the campaign in Russia, troopers & up, but should stop short of replacing or reconfiguring Joe or Wolfy, A-bombs, and early development of die Wunderwaffen. Think this very broad scale geopolitical discussion is interesting but is the basis for an entirely different game concept. This still leaves clever thinking to reflect 2nd front, 3rd front, & Pacific effects. For me, its the historical Eastern Front that attracts me. Some variability in equipment, command decisions, strategic plans suits me. How much, remains to be seen. Ex-theater effects should be historical and variable to some degree.

Someone said that the Axis needed a military leader to run the war economy. Thought Germans had someone better in Speer, but maybe not soon enough. Even so, read the national statistics for Germany and all its foes and then think through a victory plan for Germany. Always remember that the other guy can be pretty smart and often as fanatic as yourself.

Let's never see some things included in the game, e.g., Eisenhower loses nerve on June 7, Tojo kisses up to FDR, Papa Joe satisfied with 1/2 Poland, Doernitz negotiates with Churchill, etc.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I don't think you can really compare the British Empire to Germany in the long run. While the world wars accelerated the breakup, it seems to me that it was bound to happen. So it's a question of comparing the long term performance of the UK to Germany. And Germany wins here. Colonialism generally wasn't going to last for anybody.

The German General staff had convinced themselves that preclusive war against Russia was necessary, true, and it is also true that Russia was growing very fast and that its military potential would grow with it. But given their two front situation, Germany would have been better off seeking a defensive solution, and detaching the British from the French and Russians, not invading Belgium, etc. Keeping Italy friendly or at least neutral would also be a good idea. Wilhelmine Germany's diplomacy was amateur hour.

Japan is an interesting case here as well. They actually "won" the peace post WW2. Showing that their previous policy of colonialism and economic autarky was unnecessary and self defeating. Although they now have a terrible deflation problem that should have been addressed long ago. (BOJ finally has decided to get serious about this.)

Not in the long run, perhaps, but Nazi Germany was a product of, and confronted, two old empires that dominated the world and its trade.

Indeed, nothing lasts, colonialism included, but in the ebbs and flows of history, one cannot rule out bouts of neo-colonialism, even. Having different causes from old colonialism and taking place in a very different world, they will not be the same, but in the sense of occupying or controlling territory for the control of various resources and the denial of these to rival powers, history is far from finished with colonialism.

I really don't believe Germany was ever in position to fight defensive wars last century, not in the context of its needs and enemies. Britain has always followed a policy of supporting a weak continental power against the dominant one, for obvious reasons. I am well aware of Britain's dynastic ties with Germany, and after WW I, enthusiasm among much of the aristocracy and middle classes for fascism, not least Lord Halifax's faction, which wanted peace with the Nazis. That said, these sections of society were not formulating policy and they lost out because other, more powerful sections of the establishment were entrenched in a policy tradition that had worked for centuries. Churchill was a great leader of his class and he won that leadership because his policy had deep roots which were not yet ready to shift.

That being so, Germany last century could not have split Britain from France. So long as they remained united, starvation was always going to be the result of a long, defensive war. If the Kaiser didn't, Hitler definitely knew it. In WW II it is true that Nazi racial theory allowed the calorific deprivation on the continent to be concentrated in sections of society deemed 'sub-human' but this was not a long term solution. The basic fact is that Europe could not attain calorific self sufficiency with the prevailing methods of agriculture, if it ever could.

Yes, Japan was also a winner, but that doesn't prove their previous policies were unnecessary. Autarky has long been used as a shield from an intrusive and powerful outside world. The peace imposed on the world by the US, then the world's biggest creditor nation, completely changed the game. Bit by bit it's been unravelling ever since, but it made possible the massive expansion in productivity and wealth that lasted into the 1970s.

Japan's been unable to solve its problems for decades, but not for want of trying. It was the 'carry trade' of low interest money from Japan to the US that helped inflate the speculative bubble that burst in 2008. Trouble is, you need to produce values to sustain a capitalist economy, and sell them at a profit. The powers that came out of WW II on top, today predominantly speculate and borrow. Germany is the exception, but Germany too, must find resources and markets.

[turtlefang]

1939 is an entirely different argument, but Flav is correct about Germany in 1914.

Germany had NO RATIONAL reason to go to war in 1914. If it had waited, it could have put both France and Britain "under" by economic power. It's performance during WWI was far and away above both France and British Commonwealth combine. During the war, German manufacturing increased by nearly 480%; French and British, even with US imports, by about 210%.

Britain, as a trading nation, was simply cut off by 1900 from most of the markets it needed to sell its goods. And when the US cut itself off from Britain and France, their major market simply disappeared - over night - literally. (Except, by the way, for banking).

While colonialism works great for getting cheap labor and commodity resources, if your major markets set up protectionist trade barriers - as the US did, to stop purchasing your high tech goods, your colonies can't afford them. And ultimately, they will become a drain on your resources. As a trading nation, Britain suffered when the "trade" literally dried up as everyone decided to do what Britain did to build their manufacturing industries up - tariff the heck out of imports.

Germany, on the other hand, had a number of "captive" internal markets that actually worked well for it until WW1 started. Austro-Hungarian, Russia due to prior relationships, many of the Balkan countries due to cheap rail transport, and Turkey. These export markets helped spur the German manufacturing growth. And these markets weren't going to disappear or be a drain on German resources unless it went to war (which it did).

And in the years before WWI:

Table 1: Percentage Distribution of the World's Manufacturing Production 1870 and 1913

(% of world total)
Country 1870 1913
USA 23.3 35.8
Germany 13.2 15.7
U.K 31.8 14.0
France 10.3 6.4
Russia 3.7 5.5

Going to war, as Mehring point out, Germany lacks one thing - food. Unless it could knock Russia out by 1916, it would starve. There simply wasn't enough land to grow the crops needed to supply the people.

So what did Germany do? Go to war.

[Peltonx]

What is 100% clear is Germany would have won very easly IF Hitler had committed all the troops to eastern front in June 1941.

As I have posted before Germany had another 1.5 million men on other fronts.

I have played this game enough to know if GHC had another panzer gruop or 2 more infantry armies Leningrad/Moscow and Stalingrad would have fallen easly. Then 1942 would have been nothing more then a mopping up operation.

Russian did not stand a snowballs chance in hell of holding off another 750,000 Germans which could have been easly moved from the western front to the eastern.

2by3's will have to really handy cap, hog tie Germany when the full War in Europe comes out.

Defeating Russia will be a cake walk with 2 or 3 more infantry armies.

Poeple really have to put blinders on to make them selfs believe Russia had a chance.

If Germany had simply committed ALL there troops to eastern front Russia did not stand a chance.

As has been pointed out more then a 1000 times.

Hitler and Stalin were morons, but WitE makes sure Hitler is still in charge by hog tieng Germany. Then they remove Stalin from the picture.

If you simply gave the German players the same freedoms that SHC players have the game would end in 1942 easly.

This is also not including the 1.5 million other German forses that could have been commited in June 1941.

How poeple can draw a historical out come from a game that hog ties one side and gives the other total freedom is silly.

Its ok to look at the numbers with and open mind and see that germany would have won easly, but thats counter to the what we been told for the last 60+ yrs.

We won the world is free. I had family fight, die lose limbs ect, but I can see what would have happened IF Hitler was not a dum ass.

In the end the USA would have won because we had the A-bomb.

Stop fooling yourselfs, give GHC players the same freedom as SHC or add in another 250,000 to 750,000 GHC men and its game set match.

[rmonical]

Poeple really have to put blinders on to make them selfs believe Russia had a chance.

If Germany had simply committed ALL there troops to eastern front Russia did not stand a chance.

Considerations:
1. The readiness of some (32) of those divisions is questionable (wave 13-15).
2. There remains the same logistics issues that faced the original sized force.
3. Many of those divisions not present on 6/22 were already allocated as East Front reserves.

Based on years old research, I count 221 Active divisions on 6/22. 76 were not deployed east. Of the 48 divisions in France 10 were enroute East and 12 more made it into the fight by Feb 1942. 23 of the remaining divisions were wave 13,14,15 divisions and of sketchy quality. Only 3 "experienced" divisions in France on 6/22 did not make it into the fight by February 1942.

Other deployments: Afrika (3); SE 8; Norway/Denmark 8 These other fronts included 8 wave 13-15 divisions.

Of the 64 Divisions not already allocated East, I count roughly 930K personnel including 421K in the Wave 13-15 divisions. (In game terms). I suspect many of those divisions were typically not up to strength given their deployment to inactive areas.

[Michael T]

Who is going to keep all the conquests under control? I guess you figure the subjugated people will be quite happy to live under the Nazi yoke even when they are no longer around. Maybe some Nazi scarecrows would do the job.

[aspqrz02]

Yeah. Like back to 1933! [X(]

Some of the logistical problems are inherent in the resources available (or not available) to the Germans.

But I agree with other posters, the crazy degree of freedom allowed the Soviets is, in many ways, worse than the constraints the Germans have to operate under.

Phil

[aspqrz02]

What is 100% clear is that your assertions are 100% wrong.

Manpower isn't everything, logistics is.

They didn't have the logistics capacity to add all those men to the East even if they'd been able to strip the garrisons in the west and balkans bare.

Wishful thinking won't change that.

Phil

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

What is 100% clear is that your assertions are 100% wrong.

Manpower isn't everything, logistics is.

They didn't have the logistics capacity to add all those men to the East even if they'd been able to strip the garrisons in the west and balkans bare.

Wishful thinking won't change that.

Phil

Not true check the maps.

Kiev did not fall until September, its very clearly NOT a logistic nightmare to think another 2 armies could be not supplied that close to Germany is sticking ones head in the sand.

Open mind look at logic not political correctness.

MT I agree it would be hard, but even 300,000 more men would be say 20 divisions. Many of the 1.7 million men were simply sercurity units. So your still leaving 1.4 million in the west.

Also a very crappy German division is more then a match for 85% of SHC units in 1941, they would simply be used for flank protection. The better divisions would press the fight. Again simple strategy.

Be honest. Stalin was a complete moron, he sent everything he had forward,forward, forward and then forward some more. Not to hard logisticly to counter that when he is serving up the poor russian foot soldiers.

What ifs work both ways not one way.

and there are allot of SHC scarecrows that have been around for yrs that really need to be burnt.

Like the myth that Russia could solo Germany. Complete hog wash.

Russian population 176 million
German population 86 million

ratio = 2.04 to 1

Combat ratio on eastern front was at the best 3.75 to 1 from 41 - Dec 44. Much higher from 41 - Dec 43, 5 to 1

Germany was very easly bleeding Russia white. With out the Western allies Russia was toast, if you have an open mind and simply look at the numbers, which poeple have a very very hard time doing.

Poeple just have a hard time looking at the numbers only, when we have been told for decades the opposite of the numbers.

Thats fine I will simply go with the numbers and not feelings.

Heheheh see how Russia does without land lease trucks heheheheh

[rmonical]

its very clearly NOT a logistic nightmare to think another 2 armies could be not supplied that close to Germany is sticking ones head in the sand.

There are more considerations. If WITE currently gets the correct amount of German supply making it forward in 1941 (and I am leaning toward WITE being a little generous in that department - especially in poor weather and past Smolensk) then those supplies have to be spread over 20 more divisions that are on the average much less capable than the divisions to which the supplies originally went.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Guru
You say,
Hence, also, my plea for elements in the game that portray that (defend forward)

I have some

Increase German RR Rate. This means the Soviet has to actually fight forward to slow the German, rather than relying on the Supply rules to weaken him ready for the winter counteroffensive.

Remove the German spring surprise rule. Axis infanty is left further behind the panzers, giving the Soviet the opportunity to cut off or stall German forward units.

Remove the 1v1 = 2v1 rule. This encourages the Soviet to do nothing until winter. and is very poorly implemented see

tm.asp?m=3307733

for a better implementation of this rule.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: rmonical

its very clearly NOT a logistic nightmare to think another 2 armies could be not supplied that close to Germany is sticking ones head in the sand.

There are more considerations. If WITE currently gets the correct amount of German supply making it forward in 1941 (and I am leaning toward WITE being a little generous in that department - especially in poor weather and past Smolensk) then those supplies have to be spread over 20 more divisions that are on the average much less capable than the divisions to which the supplies originally went.

20 divisions are not going to come from west with nothing.

The only reason Germany sent X units to eastern front is because they "thought" russian forses were a joke. So they planned based on that.

If they had planned on russian fighting at least as good as English they would have sent everything they could.

They explected it to be over quickly.

So whats ifs work both ways not one. Germany was not even in a war time econemy until 1943, if Hitler rammed up to a war econemy in 1941.

Game set match.

Its really kinda funny when poeple argue economics or logistics when Germany was still in a peace time econemy in 1941.

If Germany started ramping up for war in late 1940 or even early 41 it had more then enough men and resoures to equipe and supply 30+ divisions more for eastern front.

What if works both ways

and I know allies won.

But to think Russia could solo Germany is completely against the facts.

[rmonical]

20 divisions are not going to come from west with nothing.

Yes they are. There was nothing else to send because as you say later in the same post the Germans in 1941 still had not transitioned to a war economy. Britain outproduced Germany in armaments in 1941.

[turtlefang]

Pelton -

Your wrong on this one. The German logistical system simply could NOT support an additional 20 divisions at this time.

Per Halder's logistical report on the Eastern front, Aug 1941, the Eastern front was recieving 35-40 trains per day and resulting in too few supplies arriving. Actually needs were in the the 60 trains per day. And when Mud arrives, the situation just got worse, by January, 1942, the official reports were stating "the rail systems in the East was virtually shut down".

The second issue was trucks. The Germans simply had NO MORE trucks to send East to support the additional divisions. And the existing trucks were rapidly overstreched supporting the existing divisions.

The supply train situation didn't improve until May, 1942 when it finally hit the required 70 trains per day number. After Aug 42, the situtation went downhill for a while but improved again starting in Oct and after than it stabilized.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: chuckles

Hi Guru
You say,
Hence, also, my plea for elements in the game that portray that (defend forward)

I have some

Increase German RR Rate. This means the Soviet has to actually fight forward to slow the German, rather than relying on the Supply rules to weaken him ready for the winter counteroffensive.

Remove the German spring surprise rule. Axis infanty is left further behind the panzers, giving the Soviet the opportunity to cut off or stall German forward units.

Remove the 1v1 = 2v1 rule. This encourages the Soviet to do nothing until winter. and is very poorly implemented see

tm.asp?m=3307733

for a better implementation of this rule.

Your theory holds two problems: First, what gets through the rail lines right now is more than what really got through due to no differentiation of single-track / double-track and locomotives question. So if the rail repair rate gets bumped, it would lead to an ahistorical well-supplied German army. Then you would have to bump down the amout of supply that is transported forward, so in the end you would have no change.

The second problem is, your theory is based on the wrong assumption. The main reason of the Soviets running is not to lure the Germans out of supply. Rather it is the combat engine. If the Soviet fights forward the only result he gets would be masses of encircled units and other losses with only minimal inflicted damage upon the German. As of now it is impossible to conduct an effective forward defence until the Germans have reached Leningrad - Vyazma and in the South not at all.

[swkuh]

Keep in mind that Germans sent as much East as possible as fast as possible. They, on Jun 22 '41, were occupying extensive territories and needed some sort of force in all those places. The Germans also needed to improve their infrastructure and get to a national war posture. These aspects of the war are often discussed as if they were free choices to the Nazis. IMO, they were strategic decisions that reflected constraints and contingencies. The German achieved strategic surprise from the Rhineland move, through Checky, etc. and even to Barbarossa. Kipling's famous questions apply: what, why, when, where, who, & how were being answered by the German political leadership opportunisticaly albeit guided by Mein Kampf and the like.

This means that gaming certain issues goes to political play (not what I want.)

Always will appreciate getting game code historically correct in regards logistics, supply, armaments, force strength & organazation, leadership, morale, etc. Fantasy options not, IMO, needed.

Game does provide scaling factors for morale, fort construction, transportation, logistics, and organizational flexibility, although these factors do not seem to have compensatory costs/benefits.

Would like to know how players adjust these factors to suit themselves. Myself, I up german morale but reduce forts, transportation, & logistics. I reduce SOV trans & logistics. (But not so much.)

[SigUp]

May I ask what kind of settings do you use? Right now I'm playing the German side with 90 morale and 90 logistics. Nothing on fort and transport, for the Soviet morale 110 and 90 logistics.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: chuckles
Increase German RR Rate.This means the Soviet has to actually fight forward to slow the German, rather than relying on the Supply rules to weaken him ready for the winter counteroffensive.

This would make the situation much worse.The only way to make it possible for the Soviets to fight forward is to limit Axis mobility.Improving the already generous Axis logistics situation would either result in massive Soviet pockets or, more likely, them running away even faster.

[Aurelian]

Those 1.5 million troops on the other fronts were there for a reason. And it wasn't for crap and giggles.