ORIGINAL: warspite1
Thanks for this helpful contribution Zovs. I wonder why there was no mention of the political? [;)]
Your welcome, I have been following this all along, I am interested in the idea of a Med strategy also, but in all my 'readings' of historical accounts (which you kind of need to do for counter factual stuff) and in particular of my war gaming 'experiments' it always seems (with great games) that in order to do so, you have to forgo Russia in 41. Which leads to your all discussion here (at least some of it, lol). I think my two biggest games that helped in this area are Third Reich (and Advanced Third Reich) from AH and SPI's WIE. I have always been more interested in operational and tactical level games. But those two fit the bill for me.
ORIGINAL: warspite1
What I find so strange is that he is prepared to accept the rules of a game as being some sort of fact, and what would definitely happen. The obvious example is Rule 13b (okay it may not be 13b [:D]). The fact that the game states Spain surrender on taking the capital means it must happen that way in any counter-factual.
Well to give Bob Cross (aka Curtis) the benefit of the doubt I think he is only thinking like a board game, but it was obvious to me from the get go that this was a 'discussion' or mental game if you will. Perhaps he cant fathom the difference (based on his bias to only quote some game designers and Wikipedia as gospel truth).
ORIGINAL: warspite1
He seems to fail to understand that the rule could have been written that way for a number of reasons: e.g. counter limitations as some Spaniards fought on while others surrendered, or it was just too complicated to incorporate into the game mechanics etc etc.
Spot on, you hit the nail on the head here. I have been playing board war games since 1976 and computer war games since 1994, and here in 2020 with board games I can easily understand why James F. Dunnigan (the creator, owner of SPI and one of the best innovators (or thief, take your pick) of war game design of all time), did or wrote what he wrote 40+ years ago, you have to remember when it came time to publish war games back then in general most games came with 200 counters on one sheet, and that cost money, so if you created a game that need 310 unit counters you had to create two sheets, likewise most maps from that era (and even in today's board war gaming world) you'd have to print two maps, all that costs money. Also, if you ever read though all the various designer notes from the 70's and 80's, you get even more insight in how they designed games and you have have pointed that out (I think it was the SPI game NATO that said if you wanted thermal nuclear weapons then pour some lighter fluid on the game map and light it up with a match, game over, or some such), anyway your right, there were back then (and even today in computer war games) limitations and you just had to make a cut or a rule in order to ship it out.
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Instead it should be for us as war gamers and military enthusiasts to come up with our take on the situation and put across possible outcomes based on all the pertinent factors we can think of.
Wholly agree and the way I have explored that avenue was via playing war games out and trying different things (as previously mentioned). Of course when you do that, you still have to play by the rules of whatever game that is, but when you are having a discussion those same rules do not apply. It's a discussion for Pete's sake. Now theoretically one could use a war game or a book as a basis, but of others can point out some flaw or other way of thinking then that is fine to, its all part of the discussion. If everyone is being reasonable and hospitable.
ORIGINAL: warspite1
I am particularly interested to hear you mention the number of divisions required for occupation. That accords similarly to Yugoslavia/Greece in real life. Presumably in the game the Axis can't just pile Spain full of Italian divisions?
One of the drawbacks (or positives, see later), is that yes the Axis player could if he wanted to use Italian divisions in garrison in Spain, but the negative side effect is the Italians in that game are not very strong at all, and the Allies could with British troops drive them out of Spain. More sensible Axis players 'husband' their Italian units. You have to understand the basic German Infantry division is rated as a 6-5 (attack/defense - movement) and the basic Italian is a 2-4. The basic British infantry unit is a 8-10. Also what makes WIE unique (in my view) is that each country uses a specific CRT to attack on, in the early part of the war the Germans are on one of the best CRT's, and towards 44 and 45 the Allies get the more favorable CRTs for attacking. So that game is a little unrealistic in that regards. You have to garrison the country but the 'rules' don't say it has to be a certain nationality. Again, any Axis player worth his salt will not but a bunch of 2-4 in Spain, it's to risky because the Western Allies can hit Spain from 3 sides. Once the Allies get a foothold on the continent it's extremely hard for the Axis to throw them out. That is for any Allied player worth his salt (i.e. not a small raid, but packing 6 or 8, 8-10's in two hexes on a port for example).
ORIGINAL: warspite1
I agree with you about Wiki, although I don't actually have any problem with the sentence he is quoting. The sentence is fine, the problem is that he is using that sentence as some sort of proof for what Japan would have done without a Barbarossa and that is simply not the case.
Agree with you on the Japanese, and also your comments on each national leader. Whether on the Allied or Axis side each had their own agendas and goals. From what I recall Stalin was just plain paranoid about the East, with all the border wars in 37-39 with Japan. I also think that Nationally Japan would not or could not loose face in China. So I agree that with the oil embargoes and other things they would have attack, well they did. lol
ORIGINAL: warspite1
By the way you are right, mummy warspite didn't name me after the greatest warship ever (FACT) [;)], I chose that for obvious reasons. By the way why Zovs as an avatar if I may ask.
My avatar is from one of my most favorite war games and is a play on my ancestors. The game in question is Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) and the counter in particular is a Russian (Lend Lease) M4A2(76)W (that is the ASL terminology). My Father immigrated from Russia in the 1950s and my mother was born here in the states, and I just thought it was a cool idea to use that counter to represent my family heritage and my favorite board war game. Thanks for asking
; Julia Child
