Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Edit: It wasn't two months either. Even if 15th May was do-able, that's just over one month.

Indeed...but they could have started in mid-april...and so many german divisions remained there...divisions that could have changed the course of history...

ORIGINAL: Anguille

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Edit: It wasn't two months either. Even if 15th May was do-able, that's just over one month.

Indeed...but they could have started in mid-april...and so many german divisions remained there...divisions that could have changed the course of history...

warspite1

Not according to Fritz!

who is fritz?

Anyway, back on topic...i like to have enougth accuracy in order to be able to imagine i am doing something historical but not so much that i cannot change the course of said history.

That is an interesting question.

But I think the best example is the invasion of France.

It's assumed it's unhistorical if the invasion of France takes a long time, however, thinking about it, the actually historical Invasion Of France was like playing a wargame with a great player (the germans) fighting a
weak player (the Allies). If bother "players" had been equal, or if the German plan had been the original "unoriginal" repeat of 1914, the result may have been very different.

So in a wargame, to replicate this upset, the French have to be weakened because as while people will accept a wargame where the Germans do very badly in the USSR or Africa, no one likes to play (strategic WWII) a game where they're still sloging in France in 1941. It's sort of a big Poland, something to get out of the way, rather than a risky throw of the dice which it was.

My point was Malta helped, and it might not have been the only source of impact, but it was indeed a source and it was the the timings of the matter that counted, and it is because Rommel came very close to winning something that you are saying he couldn't. And a wargamer is not required to call it a side show, and a wargamer is not required to fail to take every advantage, and in the end, Rommel very definitely could have done it if it was merely a math problem to be solved, and that is all a wargame is to a point when politics are not simulated well.

Invading Russia, would have been so much easier without the mindless racism. Think of what would have happened if Germany had said to the Ukrainians they could have their independence if all they did was just do nothing. Because in 1941, Germany was still able to reasonably hide from the world some of the darker aspects of their activities. It would have been a lot shorter a road to Moscow, if that road began at the eastern edge of the Ukraine. And I have yet to see a wargame reflect this real political situation all because Germany ended the war getting credit for all of their political and racist actions as if they had been known all along. I have seen games that make the first turn attacking Russia always a matter of the Russians being equally unprepared. But that circumstance was a reflection of conditions that would not have remained indefinitely.

Historical accuracy is worth nothing after the first turn of any game of grand strategy where the simulation is not required to be a reenactment. I have found, a better way to play grand strategy is often to play a game not following history beyond turn 1. Civilization V has WW2 and Civil war era scenarios to give two examples that likely do a better job in a lot of cases actually. It's just that wargamers have become conditioned to think otherwise.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I expect historical plausibility in wargaming. IF both sides play historically accurate strategies, THEN one should expect historically accurate results. Otherwise, the game is skewed one way or another and has no credibility for playing out ahistorical strategies and seeing what plausibly could have happened.

warspite1

I would have to disagree with that - not least because actually modelling that to ensure that happens would be a nightmare if not impossible - unless you took dice out of the equation.

So many battles / campaigns were on a knife edge as to who won - a mistake here, a misplaced signal there etc. Just to take two examples:

Hey I'm not suggesting an EXACT simulation to yield EXACT results, because game variabilities with dice and everything else will prevent that; I know that as a gamer. My point is that you'd like to validate a game model to be credible, such that if you replay both sides with historical OOBs and strategies then more times than not you should expect historical results. You want a credible game, not unrealistically skewed one way or another, so when you try ahistorical strategies you can at least accept the results as plausible. Some of the early stories I saw about Bulgaria winning WWII in HOI, for example, struck me as incredible and implausible, therefore not historically accurate. Maybe fun, perhaps, for those who indulge in fantasy. But not a particularly useful wargaming exercise. At the end of the day, however, wargames are still games and if properly designed and balanced should afford both sides a fair chance of victory.

I concur. I am simply not interested in any game that permits flights of fantasy results that were never possible.

Germany could have won the war in that the end result was the Allies throw in the towel and then go from there to an alternative future.

But Germany's window wasn't a large one, and after a certain year if they have blown their chances it is game over.

You can do the equal of 3 move checkmate in WW2, but only under ideal conditions. 20 turns into a chess game, and there is likely no way for me to win. That's just me though. If the Germans don't look like they are going to win prior to the historical 41 invasion of Russia, they likely can't. I have played games where France makes it to 41, but finally dies in 42, but at that point the writing is usually on the wall for Germany. If Russia is out by 42, then the Allies ain't going to win.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

It's one of the great debates. There is the argument that they could not realistically have started earlier because of the muddy conditions in that Spring.

As I understand it, the decision to postpone was made early in the Spring, and, once made, could not be reversed. What the conditions may have been like by mid-May I don't think we really know. Regardless, they were only opinions anyway, and since they never invaded in May, will remain opinions forever. They would only have been converted into facts if they had actually invaded in May and gotten bogged down in the mud. What we do know is that the weather in the Balkans (not so far away) was clear enough to allow Blitzkrieg there in April.

Also, very few of the forces sent into the Balkans were actually back on the Soviet frontier by June 22nd. So, a May invasion would have had about the same initial strength as the June one - and the Soviets would have been slightly weaker too, since they were reinforcing during that period.

I think, had the Germans known in advance how precious those extra weeks would become, they might not have postponed.

But I think moreover, the fact was the German army was simply too small, too ill-equipped, for all the tasks allotted to it.

But the more territory they gain the less manpower the Soviets can call on. There would be a tipping point, beyond which the Soviets can't out-man them anymore. And then the situation could snowball. And, historically, I think they came close to that tipping point.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think you have given the role of Malta too much importance. Have a read of O'Hara and see how much of the Afrika Korps supplies were actually lost on route - nowhere near as much as you may think.

Rommel's problem was twofold: North Africa WAS a sideshow because of what was happening in the Soviet Union - Malta does not change that.

The Mediterranean Fleet operating from Alexandria and the RAF in Egypt/Libya were responsible for the fact that Rommel's supplies were landed in Tripoli and (the much smaller) Benghazi. It cost him a huge amount of oil and trucks just to get reinforcements to the front - Malta does not change that.

Malta's survival was symbolic - it did not win/lose the war for either side. In fact, the RN (and the RAF) would have suffered far less losses if it hadn't had to re-supply the island with supplies and war material.

Biggest problem I have in simulating the Desert Campaign is Rommel's first offensive (in 1941). Tobruk always falls. Once it's cutoff, simple attrition will do the trick. Rommel's problem was that he wasn't an attrition type of guy. But no wargamer will have that issue. Once Tobruk falls in 1941, the Commonwealth is in real trouble. Malta isn't a factor, no Monty, and no heavy reinforcements are coming.

The problem is how accurate is the game?

Why play as Japan or Germany, if you know you are going to lose. Just to play?

The WitE is very accurate, too accurate for many. Divisions being pulled off to the Western Sector of the war, even if I am nearly entering Moscow. Would that be realistic? No, but accurate.

Sealion, Kursk, Battle of the Bulge and many more are scenarios just for playing, or do we want to win and change history?


Mat

ORIGINAL: DSWargamer

Germany never had a chance with Sealion, they just didn't know their limitations.
Then again, Hitler's ambitions never involved invading Britain.

But in purely analytical terms, did they ever really possess the resources needed to invade if they had considered a life or death need to do so?

The first step in a successful cross-channel invasion would have been the complete destruction of the BEF. That certainly seemed doable if they had made it a priority. Then the home defenses are significantly weaker.

Second step is obtaining a secure path across the channel. I've always felt this was doable with coastal guns. The distance from Calais to Dover is only about 30km. Coastal guns can just about bridge that. Once a lodgment is established, coastal guns can similarly be emplaced on the English side of the channel and together that would secure the path. Then the RN can't enter it, and the RAF can't do anything about channel traffic at night.

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.

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.

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

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

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.

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

warspite1

Pardon?

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?

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

Are you suggesting that our beloved Hollywood comedian Bob Hope would have conspired with the Boche and helped them successfully invade England? [&:]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Are you suggesting that our beloved Hollywood comedian Bob Hope would have conspired with the Boche and helped them successfully invade England? [&:]

warspite1

I think you mean our beloved comedian [;)] He was born in Eltham just down the road from me.

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.....

We'eeeel seeing as how we live in a multiverse, I like to think that I can play a wargame that offers the chance to explore different historical outcomes than the one that happened in our little universe that one time....[8D]

If I want historical accuracy I will read several books on the subject, from different points of view and make my mind up from there.

Deep Baby Deep and far out man..[8D]

I have some great meds...[:D]

I'll get my coat...

Cheers

Jev

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.