An Attempt to use MWiF to Simulated WW2 Reasonably Historically

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

No, my apologies ... I scrapped them because I didn't know better. I just added that to my list of what not to do next. If you don't mind, for historical flavor can you provide me insight about the roles and accomplishments of these aircraft during the war.

warpite1

The Anson is an aircraft that I suspect is always scrapped in WIF - and with little wonder. But the sad fact is in 1939 this aircraft formed the backbone of Coastal Command (10 squadrons). Some of the problems were:

- not suitable for combat (1 fixed forward .303 machine gun (and one in a rear turret)
- a bomb load of just 4 x 100 pounders (not sure what they were supposed to do to a submarine....)
- here's the real doozy when one considers the purpose of Coastal Command - the Anson had insufficient range to patrol all the way to the Norwegian coast.....

So to be more realistic I think the Commonwealth should have to waste a pilot on this.

This aircraft says quite a lot about British preparedness for war in 1939. [Suggestion: I think the RAF should also be ensure that it has a Fairey Battle counter in the game if at all possible come May 1940].

As for the Swordfish... well this biplane was the backbone of the small Fleet Air Arm in 1939. Unlike the Anson (which was relegated to a training role where it enjoyed a long career (but not needed in WIF)) this antiquated aircraft did at least prove its combat worth - Taranto and the killing of Bismarck being perhaps its finest hours. The losses during the 'Channel Dash' proved that it was hopelessly obsolete, although the losses when attacking Scharnhorst in Norway in 1940 kind of confirmed that anyway. In WIF the FAA will have this aircraft as a carrier plane but there should be probably be a land based one too. At least unlike the Anson, the WIF Swordfish are actually useful - low range but good ASW component and perfect for the 0-box.

So I went back to my notes and reconstructed my thinking for the scrapping of the Anson and the two land based swordfish. The Anson with a range of 5 had no air-to-sea factors and only 1 tactical and 2 strategic factors. Not sure how historical but seemed a perfect choice to scrap. Though, I have to admit from its picture it's a gorgeous aircraft.

For the two swordfish, one with an air-to-sea of 4 and the other with 3, it was the range of 4 and the age of the aircraft as the reasons why I scrapped them. I did keep the Vildebaest, which has an air-to-sea of only 1, but a range of 9, which translates into a reaction range of 5 (i.e., half of 9 round up). With a reaction range of 5 and based in Liverpool this means that a Vilebeast based in Liverpool could react to the 0-box in the Faeroes Gap, Bay of Biscay or North Sea. Though granted, a 4-range swordfish based in Belfast could also react to both the Faeroes Gap or Bay of Biscay with 4 instead of 1 air-to-sea factors. However, during the nav air phase, the 9 range Vildebeast, if based in Belfast, could flyout to the 3-box of either the Faeroes Gap or Bay of Biscay, whereas the swordfish could reach the 1-box. Even if based right on the coast the 4-range swordfish could never reach higher than the 2-box.

Apparently, while my thinking wasn't historical at some level, I hope my scrapping decisions are within the realm of historical belivability. If any consolation, the CV Furious is loaded with carrier based swordfish.

warspite1

You've given reasons why a (M)WIF player would, quite rightly, always scrap the Anson. But those reasons have nothing to do with historical reality which I thought this was about. You've said the Anson is a rubbish aircraft (as I said apart from as a trainer) and couldn't do the job it was used for. Exactly - and there were 10 squadrons of these in Coastal Command! To scrap it gives the CW a pilot to use on something more useful - which is great if you want to give Fighter Command numbers it didn't have or Bomber Command a capability in 1939 it didn't have.

Given that the Swordfish are present on the carriers - and the FAA was very small in 1939 (one counter would be enough) I think that not having the land-based version is an acceptable call.

I can see why you have the joint naval operations rule - to stop the French taking all this hits - but is not really required in the Western Mediterranean. I see you are insisting on a Force H type task force from day 1 at Gibraltar. This is not needed - the French had responsibility for the Western Mediterranean. Force H was needed only after the fall of France.

Not sure why the Malta Garrison requirement would only apply while Italy is neutral. The Med War panned out as it did - and the RN suffered so many losses (as did the RAF) - because of the desire to keep Malta in the game (long after it became any use as a naval station). To be historical the CW need to ensure they garrison Malta at all times and make every effort to ensure it does not fall.

But I'll butt out now as I don't think I'm quite understanding the historical vs good (M)WIF tactics trade-off.

Good luck with this mighty (and interesting) project though - that's a lot of work and I love the graphical representation [&o].

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Not sure why the Malta Garrison requirement would only apply while Italy is neutral. The Med War panned out as it did - and the RN suffered so many losses (as did the RAF) - because of the desire to keep Malta in the game (long after it became any use as a naval station). To be historical the CW need to ensure they garrison Malta at all times and make every effort to ensure it does not fall.

Acting as CW I plan to defend Malta vigorously throughout the conflict. Personally, I feel it's just good strategy. However, what I wanted to avoid was "gaming" the historical situation in that the CW shouldn't, but do know, the conditions under which Italy will declare war on them (and the French).

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I can see why you have the joint naval operations rule - to stop the French taking all this hits - but is not really required in the Western Mediterranean. I see you are insisting on a Force H type task force from day 1 at Gibraltar. This is not needed - the French had responsibility for the Western Mediterranean. Force H was needed only after the fall of France.

Thanks. Will add that to my lessons learned for next time. Also, I'm planning to move the entire Asiatic fleet into the Med and Atlantic. But, on second through, I'd like to solicit what forces should be keep for the Asiatic fleet and where should they be based. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Good luck with this mighty (and interesting) project though - that's a lot of work and I love the graphical representation [&o].

Thanks!

[Centuur]

Point 7 for the CW is very strange. The British had planned an attack on Norway, just two weeks after Germany did invade it.

So that should go, I believe.

Another thing is the number of units you are putting on the Italian border by the French. That army wasn't that big at all. On 10 May, the order of battle for the Army of the Alps was as follows:

Fortified Sector under the Army
Defensive Sector of the Rhône

14th Corps: General Étienne Beynet
64th Mountain Infantry Division
66th Mountain Infantry Division
Fortified Sector of Savoy
Fortified Sector of the Dauphiné

15th Corps: General Alfred Montagne
2nd Colonial Infantry Division
65th Mountain Infantry Division
Fortified Sector of Alpes-Maritimes

And that's it. If you include the indeed large Marseilles-Toulon garrisons, it seems like 4 corps (among which the MTN) is more than enough at the border with Italy...

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Point 7 for the CW is very strange. The British had planned an attack on Norway, just two weeks after Germany did invade it.

So that should go, I believe.

Ok. Would you also recommend removing, Point 9 for the French which also prohibits them from DOW'ing a neutral?

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Point 7 for the CW is very strange. The British had planned an attack on Norway, just two weeks after Germany did invade it.

So that should go, I believe.

Another thing is the number of units you are putting on the Italian border by the French. That army wasn't that big at all. On 10 May, the order of battle for the Army of the Alps was as follows:

Fortified Sector under the Army
Defensive Sector of the Rhône

14th Corps: General Étienne Beynet
64th Mountain Infantry Division
66th Mountain Infantry Division
Fortified Sector of Savoy
Fortified Sector of the Dauphiné

15th Corps: General Alfred Montagne
2nd Colonial Infantry Division
65th Mountain Infantry Division
Fortified Sector of Alpes-Maritimes

And that's it. If you include the indeed large Marseilles-Toulon garrisons, it seems like 4 corps (among which the MTN) is more than enough at the border with Italy...

If I understand correctly you'd recommend 2 corps on the border and Marseilles-Toulon garrisoned by a unit? What about the size of the Italian army on the border? Any recommendations there?

It looks like I should get all my "rules" out for comment and refinement and do a restart.

[rkr1958]

Also, I've placed half the French fleet in Brest to operate with the RN in the North Sea against the KM and in the Atlantic against u-boat threat. Is this reasonable?

[Centuur]

I honesty don't know where the French fleet was based in 1939.

I don't know anything about France going to war with a minor, but it was known that especially Belgium was very wary of the French...

And on the Italian side, I don't know anything about what they had on the French border in 1939.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
Also, I'm planning to move the entire Asiatic fleet into the Med and Atlantic. But, on second through, I'd like to solicit what forces should be keep for the Asiatic fleet and where should they be based. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Also, I've placed half the French fleet in Brest to operate with the RN in the North Sea against the KM and in the Atlantic against u-boat threat. Is this reasonable?

warspite1

Please see attached - I really must get back to this!

tm.asp?m=3859338&mpage=3&key=naval%2Cwar

Post 79 (French) Yes, the Force du Raid was based there and took part in the hunt for Graf Spee.

Post 69 (RN). Of the CW in the Far East Eagle was sent to the Med as was Sydney. The County-class were used on convoy escort

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Point 7 for the CW is very strange. The British had planned an attack on Norway, just two weeks after Germany did invade it.

So that should go, I believe.

Ok. Would you also recommend removing, Point 9 for the French which also prohibits them from DOW'ing a neutral?

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Point 7 for the CW is very strange. The British had planned an attack on Norway, just two weeks after Germany did invade it.

So that should go, I believe.

If I understand correctly you'd recommend 2 corps on the border and Marseilles-Toulon garrisoned by a unit? What about the size of the Italian army on the border? Any recommendations there?

It looks like I should get all my "rules" out for comment and refinement and do a restart.

warspite1

rkr1958

The French and British should be treated as one - and no the rule is not entirely right [;)]

The Anglo-French expedition to Norway was beaten by about 24 hours by the Germans! Think Persia too (with the USSR) - the Western Allies would invade a neutral if the conditions were right - indeed Gamelin wanted to bomb the Caucasus! - albeit this should be used very, very sparingly and be under pretty extreme circumstances. Oh and you should also allow months of vacillation in operating the plan once you've decided on it (you should read about the Invasion of Norway sometime - its a doozy [&:]).

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Please see attached - I really must get back to this!

tm.asp?m=3859338&mpage=3&key=naval%2Cwar

Wow! You should publish all this.

[rkr1958]

I've been trying to puzzle through the Scandinavia campaigns and politics of 1939 and 1940 for a while and would greatly appreciate any help/insights you folks might have. Before I get to my questions, let me state what I understand to be correct (please comment):

1. The European Democracies hated the communist almost as much, if not more, than they hated the fascists.
2. The primary driver of the British/French plan to intervene in, or even invade, Norway was Winston Churchill.
3. Churchill wanted to directly send aid to Finland through northern Norway (Narvik, Tromso) to support Finland in their fight against the Soviets.
4. In fact, Churchill was prepping from an invasion of Norway and a declaration of war against the Soviet Union for the Spring/Summer of 1940, but was saved from that potential disaster by Finland agreeing to an armistice with the Soviets in March 1940. An armistice which gave the Soviets what they wanted (i.e., the Finnish borderlands).
5. Even after the end of the Winter War, the British and French continued on with their planned invasion of Norway and were saved the title of aggressor only by the fact that Germany beat them to it (i.e., invasion of Norway).
6. Hitler invaded Norway because he feared that the allies would use Norway to cut off his vital shipments of iron ore from Sweden, which was his major (only?) source of iron ore.

7. Hypothesis: So, by Finland denying the Soviet claim on the borderlands, the Winter War results. Because of the Winter War, Churchill pushes for an invasion of Norway in order to directly intervene in Finland against the Soviets. Going so far as pushing for a British/French DOW against the Soviets. But, the Finns give in to the Soviets before the allies can intervene; thus saving the British and French from being at war with Germany and the Soviet Union at the same time in April/May 1940. Even after the winter war ends, the allies continue with their plan invasion of Norway in order to cutoff Germany's major (only?) source of iron ore. Discerning a credible threat to his source of iron ore, Hitler orders a preemptive invasion of Norway to secure that source.

Assuming all this is basically correct, or correct enough, here are my questions:

8. Without the winter war and the opportunity to intervene in Finland against the Soviets, do you believe that Churchill would have pushed for a British (allied) invasion of Norway?
9. Was Germany's "preemptive" invasion of Norway the result of German intelligence or spies actually discerning the allies intentions there? In other words, if there had been no serious planning and preparations taken by the Brits and the French to invade Norway would Germany have "preemptive"?
10. If the allies had successfully invaded, or intervened in, Norway, how did the allies plan to interdict the Swedish iron ore shipments to Germany without violating the neutrality of Sweden?
11. Does anyone see any way of modelling all these interactions in a fun and believable way without a bunch of silly, unrealistic or heavily scripted events/guideline?

[Courtenay]

All operational World War II games that cover the whole war have a problem: France in 1940. It is very, very hard to find a player who will run the French as badly as the French were run in the real war. If you give the French their historical capabilities, the war will not go as it historically did, unless you impose idiot rules that most players would find intolerable. (The old Avalon Hill game France '40 had a scenario which did impose the historical plan on the Allies; the result is not a game, but is a fascinating glimpse of history.) WiF does what most (all?) WW II games do: weaken the French capabilities some. This combined with greater German flexibility lets France fall fairly quickly, but it doesn't fall the way it historically did.

Sorry about not answering your Scandinavian questions!

[Courtenay]

One other thing that WiF does not get right is the Allied surprise. The Allies did not launch a surprise assault on Germany in Sep '39. However, the declaration of war did achieve surprise: strategic surprise. To duplicate this in WiF, impose the following rules: the Allies may not attack Germany in '39. (Attack means bombing them or ground combat. If the Germans leave a hex open, the Allied may walk in. The surprise part comes in that *no one* is allowed to make any DOWs in S/O 39 after impulse two. The Allied DoW caused diplomatic paralysis around the world, and it took everyone months to figure your what to do.

(The surprise rule also does not work for the Italians. When they declared war on the Allies, it was a surprise, all right -- to the Italians. One third of the Italian merchant marine wound up being captured by the Allies. Try duplicating that in WiF!)

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I've been trying to puzzle through the Scandinavia campaigns and politics of 1939 and 1940 for a while and would greatly appreciate any help/insights you folks might have. Before I get to my questions, let me state what I understand to be correct (please comment):

1. The European Democracies hated the communist almost as much, if not more, than they hated the fascists.
There was certainly a fear of Communism yes
2. The primary driver of the British/French plan to intervene in, or even invade, Norway was Winston Churchill.
Yes. Chamberlain was very much against it - which is ironic as the Norwegian fiasco cost him his job
3. Churchill wanted to directly send aid to Finland through northern Norway (Narvik, Tromso) to support Finland in their fight against the Soviets.
No. Not really. Churchill wasn't really interested in sending troops to fight in Finland. I suspect the idealist in him wanted to help, but Finland gave Churchill the excuse for landing in Norway and - don't forget this - Sweden too [8|]
4. In fact, Churchill was prepping from an invasion of Norway and a declaration of war against the Soviet Union for the Spring/Summer of 1940, but was saved from that potential disaster by Finland agreeing to an armistice with the Soviets in March 1940. An armistice which gave the Soviets what they wanted (i.e., the Finnish borderlands).
As per above, Churchill was not actively looking to declare war on the Soviets - that was the French spiffing wheeze and Gamelin's plan to bomb the oil fields of the Caucasus from the Middle East [8|]
5. Even after the end of the Winter War, the British and French continued on with their planned invasion of Norway and were saved the title of aggressor only by the fact that Germany beat them to it (i.e., invasion of Norway).
It wasn't an invasion - it was a friendly landing type er thing - you should read the orders the troops were given.... [:D]
6. Hitler invaded Norway because he feared that the allies would use Norway to cut off his vital shipments of iron ore from Sweden, which was his major (only?) source of iron ore.
Yes - the Altmark incident probably was the one thing that tipped him over the edge

7. Hypothesis: So, by Finland denying the Soviet claim on the borderlands, the Winter War results. Because of the Winter War, Churchill pushes for an invasion of Norway in order to directly intervene in Finland against the Soviets. Going so far as pushing for a British/French DOW against the Soviets. But, the Finns give in to the Soviets before the allies can intervene; thus saving the British and French from being at war with Germany and the Soviet Union at the same time in April/May 1940. Even after the winter war ends, the allies continue with their plan invasion of Norway in order to cutoff Germany's major (only?) source of iron ore. Discerning a credible threat to his source of iron ore, Hitler orders a preemptive invasion of Norway to secure that source.

Assuming all this is basically correct, or correct enough, here are my questions:

8. Without the winter war and the opportunity to intervene in Finland against the Soviets, do you believe that Churchill would have pushed for a British (allied) invasion of Norway?
Whether he would or wouldn't, I don't believe it would have happened. The reason being there would be no justification for it - spurious though that was in any case. The idea was that Norway and Sweden would accept the plan to help the Finns. Things snowballed at a snails pace from there. But without the Winter War, the actual idea would have been very difficult to get off the ground.
9. Was Germany's "preemptive" invasion of Norway the result of German intelligence or spies actually discerning the allies intentions there? In other words, if there had been no serious planning and preparations taken by the Brits and the French to invade Norway would Germany have "preemptive"?
No I don't think so. Germany's spy network wasn't that great. It was a number of things that came together that caused Hitler to do this; the Altmark incident and his fear that Norwegian neutrality wouldn't be respected, his fear for his flank and his iron ore deposits, Quisling's visit to Germany in 1939 etc
10. If the allies had successfully invaded, or intervened in, Norway, how did the allies plan to interdict the Swedish iron ore shipments to Germany without violating the neutrality of Sweden?
As above, they didn't. This is why anyone who loves WWII needs to read about this fascinating episode. There was no point doing this unless Sweden's northern ore fields were occupied too - because blocking the ore via Norway was only possible in winter.
11. Does anyone see any way of modelling all these interactions in a fun and believable way without a bunch of silly, unrealistic or heavily scripted events/guideline?
How does one model this total and utter fiasco? [8|] Probably best to leave it and just allow the Germans to invade Norway [:D].
I mean what would the consequences have been? Had this hare-brained scheme got off the ground would Norway have turned to Germany and welcomed them as liberators? What would be the knock-on effect of all those merchant ships - especially tankers potentially not going to the CW? Sweden would not take kindly to this either and would actively fight and at very least allow German troops to assist in ejecting the Anglo-French forces.

[Courtenay]

Another theater that is impossible to model in WiF is Iraq. The forces involved were just too small scale.

[brian brian]

The importance of the Swedish iron ore is hard to grasp playing World in Flames because the resources in Sweden are the same as the resources in any other country. So an Axis player can easily think the risk is to just 3 RES for 1-3 turns each year - maybe that isn't so bad.

The historical Germans didn't see it that way due to the high quality of the Swedish ore and the ways that is needed to make high quality steel - and high quality steel is a critical part of building things like a Panzer Mk IV. The high quality Swedish ore couldn't be replaced by simply invading some other resource rich country.

I stumbled across a 'review of a PC game of WWII at the grand strategy level which did model the economics in quite a bit more detail with all the various metals and the sources of them around the globe. It looked interesting, but the review quickly detoured into a look at the best line of play for the USA, which was to invade Mexico in the fall of 1939 in order to build a more perfect economy, based on things Mexico had that the USA didn't. I quit reading right there and since then I have forgotten the name of the game.

I don't think anyone really wants to play Periodic Table in Flames, even though thinking about items such as Wolfram, Chromium, Tungsten, and Nickel drove diplomacy and sometimes strategy in WWII.



If those embarking British infantry had reached Norwegian ports before any German forces did; well, that is a great What If? of WWII. I would imagine Norwegian academic historians have looked at the question in following decades but I wonder if any such writings on the topic have been translated to English.


I think Churchill wanted to send a variety of things to Finland, and was getting closer to violating Norwegian & Swedish neutrality to do it. Things like ammunition, high octane aviation fuel, fighter aircraft, and perhaps help transit volunteers for Finland. Maybe a model to consider is Britain's participation in the Spanish Civil War perhaps.



(I think Italy lost a lot of it's merchant marine simply via the closing of the Straits of Gibraltar, as it was heavily involved with trading with the USA in 1940.)

[rkr1958]

@Courtenay, warspite1, brian brian, Centuur,

Thanks to all of you a light dawned on me in regards to several of the early game issues we've been discussion. Instead of going into specifics in this post on all these ideas, I will restart and post along the way from critique and refinement. I think I've found an acceptable approach for handling Scandinavia (early game), Japan-USSR (also early game) and an approach that will allow me to play with Cruisers in Flames (i.e., CL's). I'm sure there's plenty of potholes and roadblocks left, but I'm anxious to get pencil to paper, or in this case, units on maps and see where it takes us.

Thanks again for your critiques and suggestions, please keeping them coming as they've been invaluable.

And warspite1, under no circumstances with the CW scrap the Anson or two land based swordfish. I'm going to call this the no-scrapping warspite rule. [:D]

Also, I plan to use your detailed "day-by-day" naval thread for setting up the RN and French navies.

ORIGINAL: Courtenay
(The old Avalon Hill game France '40 had a scenario which did impose the historical plan on the Allies; the result is not a game, but is a fascinating glimpse of history.)

AH France '40 was my first wargame. I got the game for Christmas '72 (if I remember correctly) and still have it.

[brian brian]

There is a way to partially model France, 1940 in WiF, and I have even seen something similar to this happen in an AAR on this very website. The Germans attack and take Liege and the Belgian woods hex next to the Saar. Then the Allies advance to the Dyle - but they don't bother moving up any other units, which just kind of sit in reserve along the Seine, leaving 1-2 empty hexes behind the Belgian front. (Very bad play - a key part of the defense of France is the quality of the French _second_ line). The Germans then blow through anything in front of them on the way out of the Ardennes and exploit into the empty space behind the Allied line in Belgium.

Of course, that would work better in Third Reich where an "Exploiting" Armor unit moved all of it's movement points. In WiF, you get just one hex after a breakthrough. But it's a start. And in WiF you can't make a 'Breakthrough' move out of a woods hex however.

A little more convoluted way to look at the dash to the Channel is the result of an Axis double move. You don't have to use the names of the months on the turn as some sort of gospel on what happens when in WiF. The military units in WWII did not all magically come to 100% ready-ness on Jan. 1, March 1, May 1, July 1, Sept. 1, and Nov. 1. You can look at the turn end and the # of impulses as somewhat (like everything in WiF) flexible with regard to date.

So the Germans attack the Low Countries late in a long Mar/Apr 1940 "turn" (bad move in WiF due to the Allies Support Attacked Minor die roll). They take the Ardennes with Panzers ready to move forward and no ZoCs in front of them. The Allies move in to Belgium but don't cover the gap growing on the flank of the Maginot. The turn ends; then the Germans move first on the next turn and drive to the Channel.

Or, have the Germans attack but start with an Air Impulse. They paste all the Allied units in range with Ground Strikes, etc. and re-org their planes. The Allies respond by moving in to Belgium. The Germans attack the Ardennes and the Panzers are poised to advance - but the turn ends after the German impulse. The next turn, M/J 40, the Germans move first and pocket the Allies in Belgium. The Allies lost the Initiative roll while the French high command tried to absorb the news of the crossing of the Meuse and the disintegration of the French 2nd and 9th Armies. French Prime Minister Reynaud quote on just the 6th day of the German offensive in the West: "We are defeated."

(Using an Offensive Chit on this would probably be 'historical', or use it on the Air Impulse to simply flip lots and lots of French units. I build the Guderian HQ-A on the first turn of every game for this purpose).

[rkr1958]

Thanks brian, I've decided for now not to script tactics ... but plan to script some things at the strategic level like Italy's DOW on Greece just to hack off Adolf. [8D]

[rkr1958]

Soviet European requirements.

It dawned on me today that MWiF, I feel, makes it way too easy for the Soviets to "claim", actually conquered, Eastern Poland.


Historically, the Soviets deployed 7 field armies and somewhere between a half-million to million men on their border with Poland. However, in MWiF all the Soviets have to do is move a division, garrison, any land unit, 1 hex into Eastern Poland and it's theirs. In effect, this releases the majority of the Soviet army in Europe for adventures elsewhere (e.g., invasion of Bulgaria, redeployment to Persia, setup against Finland, etc.). And, maybe this was exactly what the designers had in mind ... that is give the Soviet player options ... some of which may be historical, others maybe not so.

So, in an attempt to keep things more historical for the Soviets in Europe ... please let me know what you think.

P.S., just noticed I misspelled "setup" ... "send up". And the last sentence of #8 should be, "But then again that might be a, "Bridge too Far."

It's late, I'm tired and making mistakes (well more mistakes than normal). Time for bed. [>:][>:][>:][>:]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Soviet European requirements.

It dawned on me today that MWiF, I feel, makes it way too easy for the Soviets to "claim", actually conquered, Eastern Poland.


Historically, the Soviets deployed 7 field armies and somewhere between a half-million to million men on their border with Poland. However, in MWiF all the Soviets have to do is move a division, garrison, any land unit, 1 hex into Eastern Poland and it's theirs. In effect, this releases the majority of the Soviet army in Europe for adventures elsewhere (e.g., invasion of Bulgaria, redeployment to Persia, setup against Finland, etc.). And, maybe this was exactly what the designers had in mind ... that is give the Soviet player options ... some of which may be historical, others maybe not so.

So, in an attempt to keep things more historical for the Soviets in Europe ... please let me know what you think.

P.S., just noticed I misspelled "setup" ... "send up". And the last sentence of #8 should be, "But then again that might be a, "Bridge too Far."

It's late, I'm tired and making mistakes (well more mistakes than normal). Time for bed. [>:][>:][>:][>:]

warspite1

Re bold - yes exactly - that is what (M)WIF is all about; a framework for WWII without strait-jacketing and making all games the same. This is also true of giving Germany the option of ceding the Finnish borderlands and declining the claim on Bessarabia.

So in keeping with historical reality I think your ideas for the Soviet invasion of Poland are good ones - perhaps impose a minimum garrison on Eastern Poland / Baltic States too.

The Nazi-Soviet pact calls into question a number of things, but in keeping this historical I do not believe a Soviet invasion of Bulgaria should even be allowed. I can see why ADG have allowed this, but god only knows how Hitler would have reacted to such a move. He was upset enough by the Soviets taking action in Finland and Bessarabia and they were in the pact! (Perhaps why ADG allows an option to decline Bessarabia)

Bulgaria was not part of the NS pact, although was part of subsequent, aborted negotiations - with Moscow the driver - as she was concerned by German encroachment in the Balkans (long a Soviet sphere of interest) and particularly because of the Straits. Stalin wanted to give guarantees to Bulgaria and even Turkey (although what that meant in practice who knows [;)]). With your new guidelines in place, I don't think the USSR has the troops to do anything about Bulgaria and that is good.

Obviously if things go badly for Germany in Western Europe (as Stalin hoped) then operations (or an agreement) over Bulgaria would become more likely.