Historical accuracy in wargames

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Looks like we don't agree on much [;)]

In my view the Germans had two hopes of launching a successful Sealion ...and one of them was Bob.

Bob? As in "Bob's your uncle."? What did your uncle have to do with Sealion? Was he a German? Warspite1, are you the boche?

warspite1

No - Bob as in the saying:

You've got two hopes - Bob Hope and No Hope

The American version is "you've got 2 chances - slim and none. And Slim just left town."

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

IMHO opinion NOBODY wants complete historical accuracy in wargames - we all want our own interpretation of accuracy ...

I want an accurate OoB and map, but not necessarilly at the expense of both play and replayability; an ubber-accurate sim that isn't at all fun just won't sell well.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Looks like we don't agree on much [;)]

In my view the Germans had two hopes of launching a successful Sealion ...and one of them was Bob.

Well, give us a hint. How have you come to this erroneous conclusion? We can't help you if you don't talk to us.

warspite1

I'm a little slow but I didn't get post 33 and I'm struggling with this one too....sorry.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I'm a little slow but I didn't get post 33 and I'm struggling with this one too....sorry.

"So in your sig line did He expect the impressed sailors and americans to boot to do their duty?"

I think twotribes is referring to your signature and was asking if England was expecting the impressed sailors and also the americans to do their duty.

After all, they are a subset of "every man"

[Saint Ruth]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
No, what I am suggesting is that one way of ending the war v.quickly was for Hitler to have ordered Sealion. Bye bye 6th Army.....

Perhaps not. If Sealion had been lost, he wouldn't have invaded the USSR, and perhaps the Japanese would then not have attacked the US.

In a wargame, the USSR and the US always can enter the war in 1942, so that's the case in all wargames that if you delay the invasion of the USSR and lose Sealion, you've lost the war.

In reality of course, Stalin had no intention of fighting Britain's war for it. He didn't join them when the odds were more favourable in 1939, so he'd no intention of doing it when the odds were lower. He'd have been delighted to sit on the sidelines and let them fight it out.

And would the Japanese have attacked Pearl Harbor with the USSR as a threat to its rear?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I'm a little slow but I didn't get post 33 and I'm struggling with this one too....sorry.

"So in your sig line did He expect the impressed sailors and americans to boot to do their duty?"

I think twotribes is referring to your signature and was asking if England was expecting the impressed sailors and also the americans to do their duty.

After all, they are a subset of "every man"

Being that it was a general signal to Nelson's fleet, and the fleet alone, I would say it was to every man in his fleet.

Would of been hard for it to apply to the Franco-Spanish fleet, unless they could understand the signal. And even harder for it to apply to anyone else being that they couldn't see it.

[Jamm]

This is why I prefer tactical.
Give me historically accurate units and let me play it out on the small scale without my actions being hindered or predetermined.
I see people saying this couldn't happen or succeed etc. like SeaLion. The same could probably have been said about Overlord. What ifs and possibilities is what makes these games entertaining.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I'm a little slow but I didn't get post 33 and I'm struggling with this one too....sorry.

"So in your sig line did He expect the impressed sailors and americans to boot to do their duty?"

I think twotribes is referring to your signature and was asking if England was expecting the impressed sailors and also the americans to do their duty.

After all, they are a subset of "every man"

warspite1

Well if that was the meaning then it seems a mighty strange question....

It was Admiral Lord Nelson's rallying call - it wasn't meant to be a politically correct, all-inclusive and touchy feely statement.

Regardless of who was there, what nationality, and why, yes of course England expected that every man would do his duty. Why would that be any different to Napoleon expecting his multi-national Russian invasion force to fight as hard as they can for France, or MacArthur expecting his Fillipino troops to fight for the US or Hitler and his Balkan/Finnish troops or...well you get the picture. Very strange question indeed....

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Regardless of who was there, what nationality, and why, yes of course England expected that every man would do his duty.

LOL, ah the English.

Men impressed into service or kidnapped off another vessel are not duty bound to do anything. They are slave labor pure and simple. Only the English could glamorize such a practice and think of the men as honor-bound to do their duty… Lol.

Imagine I show up at your house tomorrow and club you over the head. The next day you awake on a ship and find yourself forced into manual labor for unending years, and somewhere in the middle of that some pompous ass comes along and tells you it is your duty to die in an upcoming battle. Oh and by the way, fail in that duty and he’s going to keelhaul your ass if you live.

England controlled about 1/6th of the globe at one point in history and I guarantee it was not done through honorable or peaceful means. They wronged a lot of people to grab what they did.

Jim

[warspite1]

Where do I even start with this? LOL? No, not even remotely funny…

It’s a funny old game isn’t it? Not for the first time England/Britain is on the receiving end in these forums and from people who really should know better…..

Re the last paragraph

I could be angry and suggest that the poster look at his own country’s record, but the problem with that is that I value America. She is an ally. A country that, growing up in the post-World War II cold war era, I can be thankful was there helping keep Europe safe. I recognise that America is a force for the good far more than not. So no, I have no intention of going down that route.

Sadly, the British get no such consideration from people like the poster above. I could suggest that when it comes to the British Empire he actually reads a book, he actually tries to understand what happened, why, how values were different then, how Britain has been, on balance, a force for the good, how not all Empires were the same etc etc, but I suspect that would be a waste of time and energy.

Re the first two paragraphs

“Glamourising” the practice of press gangs, where exactly did that come from? Who the hell said that? England expects… is one of the most famous signals in the history of warfare. It was an exaltation to the men about to win one of the most comprehensive naval victory’s in history. What was Nelson supposed to have said?

England expects that 760 British men (whether impressed or not) aboard HMS Victory will do their duty – as for the other 63 (inc 22 Americans), sorry for the situation you find yourselves in (less enlightened times and all that, what), but perhaps I can trouble you to fight for us anyway? Thanks awfully.

By the standards of today, the press gangs were a barbaric practice (and they weren’t just used against Americans – British citizens suffered the same way) but it happened. Once impressed, yes, those sailors were expected to do their duty. Life in the navy was hard and punishments harder still, if they didn’t do what was expected – like any sailor of any nationality – there was an array of unpleasantness that could be handed down. That was life back then – brutal.

So in summary:
a) DON’T put words in my mouth and suggest I have said things I haven’t
b) Read a book or two

[Jim D Burns]

It’s a funny old game isn’t it? Not for the first time England/Britain is on the receiving end in these forums and from people who really should know better…

Calm down I was/am not attacking the England of today, but the England that existed at the time of Trafalgar was not a force for good. They were very much a brutal dictatorship and were oppressing people the world over to grow and sustain their huge empire. While the naval battle was a large and impressive one it is stained with the fact the majority of the men onboard the ships involved were slave labor and were not there fighting for their country the way most men in the worlds militaries today are there because they believe in and love their countries.

I could be angry and suggest that the poster look at his own country’s record, but the problem with that is that I value America. She is an ally. A country that, growing up in the post-World War II cold war era, I can be thankful was there helping keep Europe safe. I recognise that America is a force for the good far more than not. So no, I have no intention of going down that route.

Right but America, the idea for America, was born out of revolting against British colonial oppression. Had Britain not treated non-British peoples so badly back then America would never have been. It takes a lot to get men to raise up in arms against their own nation and at the time we were very much a part of Britain. The fact so many Americans fought against the revolution proves it.

Sadly, the British get no such consideration from people like the poster above. I could suggest that when it comes to the British Empire he actually reads a book, he actually tries to understand what happened, why, how values were different then, how Britain has been, on balance, a force for the good, how not all Empires were the same etc etc, but I suspect that would be a waste of time and energy.

As I mentioned the Britain of today is a far cry from what the Britain of yesterday was. I understand and actually empathize with the need to defend and find pride in your countries past, but the British have a tendency to forget the truth sometimes.

It’s easy and convenient to look at Napoleon and say he was a mad man set on world domination therefore Britain must have been the good guys. But the fact is they spent that entire period in history instigating conflict all in an attempt to destabilize mainland Europe to prevent France’s domination from competing with their colonial ambitions. They instigated a lot of the war that took place so they could continue oppressing the masses of the world and expanding their rule virtually unopposed, not a “good” guy thing to do by a far cry.

“Glamourising” the practice of press gangs, where exactly did that come from? Who the hell said that? England expects… is one of the most famous signals in the history of warfare. It was an exaltation to the men about to win one of the most comprehensive naval victory’s in history. What was Nelson supposed to have said?

Glamorizing means to glorify or romanticize something. By picking out a quote, “England expects…” and highlighting it as a great moment in history, and then questioning someone’s logic who points out that most or a large percentage of the men present were not there voluntarily yet were expected to fight and die, definitely is an attempt to glamorize it.

Jim

[warspite1]

Well, we are clearly poles apart in terms of how we view history. Brutal dictatorship... oh goodness...

But it appears its not just on the matter of Empire, but also with respect to Britain's desire to keep themselves safe by not allowing any one country hedgemony in Europe. I am a little surprised that you do not recognise that such hedgemony could only be achieved by tin pot dictators invading other countries. So while Britain was such a force for evil, Napoleon invading Austria, Italy, Prussia, the other German States, Russia, oh and not forgetting stabbing their ally Spain in the back, was perfectly acceptable? Nice guy Napoleon - salt of the earth.

Highlighting Trafalgar as a great moment in the annals of military history? Damn right I do. Admiral Lord Nelson a pompous ass? What a ridiculous thing to say about the finest fighting sailor ever.

I would encourage you to read Niall Ferguson's Empire - How Britain Made The Modern World. This is a brilliant, balanced book that dispels a lot of the nonsense around the Empire, while at the same time not glossing over the negatives.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Well, we are clearly poles apart in terms of how we view history.

British (and other nations) Colonialism was a horrible period in world history. Much of the wrong doing has been erased from history or cleaned up to make the British government appear benevolent. The fact most of the documentation has been destroyed by order of the government and only a small percentage of any of the records still even exist http://boingboing.net/2012/04/18/eviden ... lonia.html means British attempts to re-write history may eventually succeed.

The link above relates to British atrocities in the 40s and 50s. This is post WWII Britain, a period in which they were no longer the dominate power in the world and were basically forced to give back their colonial possessions. If they behaved like this with at least enough accountability to make them care enough to attempt to destroy or cover-up wrongdoings, just imagine what the real history of British atrocities in the Napoleonic era were like where they were the dominate force in the world and accountable to no one.

Britain is not alone in this of course, any nation who took part in Colonialism was guilty. Any nation/government that survives today that took part in Colonialism has probably done exactly what Britain has done and destroyed evidence of atrocities and tried to change the history. Do you think the Nazis would have allowed evidence of the Jewish holocaust to survive had they won and still been around today? No way, I’m sure they would have written a new narrative and tried to make it seem like they simply migrated away or something.

Jim

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Well, we are clearly poles apart in terms of how we view history.

British (and other nations) Colonialism was a horrible period in world history. Much of the wrong doing has been erased from history or cleaned up to make the British government appear benevolent. The fact most of the documentation has been destroyed by order of the government and only a small percentage of any of the records still even exist http://boingboing.net/2012/04/18/eviden ... lonia.html means British attempts to re-write history may eventually succeed.

The link above relates to British atrocities in the 40s and 50s. This is post WWII Britain, a period in which they were no longer the dominate power in the world and were basically forced to give back their colonial possessions. If they behaved like this with at least enough accountability to make them care enough to attempt to destroy or cover-up wrongdoings, just imagine what the real history of British atrocities in the Napoleonic era were like where they were the dominate force in the world and accountable to no one.

Britain is not alone in this of course, any nation who took part in Colonialism was guilty. Any nation/government that survives today that took part in Colonialism has probably done exactly what Britain has done and destroyed evidence of atrocities and tried to change the history. Do you think the Nazis would have allowed evidence of the Jewish holocaust to survive had they won and still been around today? No way, I’m sure they would have written a new narrative and tried to make it seem like they simply migrated away or something.

Jim

warspite1

Pathetic. Absolutely, and quite astoundingly pathetic.

[catwhoorg]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Pathetic. Absolutely, and quite astoundingly pathetic.

I'm pretty sure that was a Godwin.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Pathetic. Absolutely, and quite astoundingly pathetic.

I'm pretty sure that was a Godwin.

warspite1

Godwin?

Edit - just looked it up. Yep, as pathetic and crass as it was predictable I guess.

"The law is sometimes invoked prescriptively to mark the end of a discussion when a Nazi analogy is made, with the writer who made the analogy being considered to have lost the argument." Yep correct again [&o]

[Jim D Burns]

I wasn’t pulling a Godwin, I in no way equated British Colonialism to the holocaust I was just emphasizing my point about the re-write of colonial history. But since you don’t like my opinion of British Colonialism, perhaps you’ll listen to Churchill’s opinion, he is quoted below the picture here:

http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2012/11 ... ished.html

I disagree with the articles premise about the need for reparations, history is history and people today should not be forced to pay for the crimes of those in the past, I just linked it for the quote. As I said Britain is a very different country today than when it was a colonial power. But the tendency to want to forget it all and romanticize the period is common and probably due to the destruction of most of the documentation from that period.

I love my country and have served it all my life. But I in no way deny or refute the evil acts that are a part of the USA’s past history. Slavery and what happened to the Indians are two of the worst evils America is guilty of, yet I still believe it is the greatest nation on earth.

Jim

[warspite1]

If the Sri Lankan Guardian is anything like its US-hating, left wing UK namesake, I can see why you chose that. A balanced, objective view is clearly not to be found there (but that is not what you seek - so no surprise there).

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

If the Sri Lankan Guardian is anything like its US-hating, left wing UK namesake, I can see why you chose that. A balanced, objective view is clearly not to be found there (but that is not what you seek - so no surprise there).

As I said, I disagree with the article, I linked it for the Churchill quote. In the US the press fact checks things like quotes, which means quotes are usually accurate, so I assume the British press does too. All I know about the Guardian is it's a British paper sometimes referenced in our media here.

Jim

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: warspite1

If the Sri Lankan Guardian is anything like its US-hating, left wing UK namesake, I can see why you chose that. A balanced, objective view is clearly not to be found there (but that is not what you seek - so no surprise there).

As I said, I disagree with the article, I linked it for the Churchill quote. In the US the press fact checks things like quotes, which means quotes are usually accurate, so I assume the British press does too. All I know about the Guardian is it's a British paper sometimes referenced in our media here.

Jim

warspite1

One quote, taken out of context - the point is?