Pulling Tanks and AF from Poland

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: Helsingor


I also disagree with the assertion that attacking the Low Countries in fall 1939 is "gamey." It comes with certain advantages for the Axis, but it can backfire against a competent opponent. If I remember correctly, Hitler urged OKH to attack earlier than May 1940--which could have been an example of one of his lucky hunches or a disastrous gamble.

Honestly this is a bunch of crap, changing your login isn't fooling anyone. I'm not a very top player but I'm very competent, this tactic accelerates the fall of France by a month with no penalty for taking Poland much slower. The issue isn't if Hitler could have done this its that THE GAME (French/Brit) is set up for a Spring '40 attack on the low countries and doesn't represent actual French/Brit troop strength in Fall '39. THE GAME is set up so the Allies can't mount an attack (certainly a possibility) early. I will say the strategy increases SU & US mobilization much earlier so I'll have to see how it plays out in the end.

Hubert the game gets mostly very positive reviews. You are correct that people want different strategies but an overwhelming majority definitely want possibilities that are within reason of history. Bill I appreciate your concern for losing new people early because of Poland being difficult, I can guarantee you will lose more when they play PBEM and Holland is attacked in Oct '39 with this strategy.

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

And some players desire a chance to play the game without getting steamrolled early.

The PBEM game evolved considerably over the years and is now great. Regrettably scores of PBEM players were driven away from the game because of early very a-historic "gamey" possibilities (very easy sealion, DE 603, early LRAT, entire German AF in Algiers [;)], un-sink able subs, 0 supply units, etc).

Unfortunately these changes were slow to take place because of a small group of vocal players who's interest in the game was enabling a strategy that the Axis could easily steamroll (ty Taxman) their opponents. They did great detriment to the game.

[BillRunacre]

I have made a note to consider a change with regard to an early invasion of the Netherlands, as that seems a simple change that won't trip up players who are busy conquering Poland and not trying to attack in the west too at the same time.

[Rannug61]

I agree about there should be a downside if you go slow on Poland.

[Simulacra53]

Attacking Holland in 1939 should at least:

1. Cause a drop in German national morale - NL wasn’t an enemy / neutral friend in WW1 - no casus belli, early two front war
2. Early entry of Belgium on side of Anglo-French
3. Early extension of Allied defenses into Belgium
4. Possible more aggressive early Allied counter moves - into NL or Germany proper, Rhineland?

Invading NL in 1939 should practically spoil any chance of a Blitzkrieg in the west, with more resolved and prepared Allies and German national morale damage. The Manstein plan does not work, you may still pierce the Ardennes, but the Allies are more prepared for possible German axis of attack.

Basically there is little or nothing to be politically or military gained by Germany if it invades NL in 1939, in that sense it is a gamey tactics - not realistic. Should it be allowed for, of course, but not without paying a price - imo higher in the west, at least initially.