GD1938V3 First Game

[cpdeyoung]

13 November 1939

In the west the artillery and air duels continue. The Germans also made a land attack in the center which resulted in the first loss for the French Chars. A Somua S.35 was destroyed, as were four German AFVs. The Germans were rejected and gained no ground.

I am somewhat surprised at how large the French and low countries' Armies have become.

The French were deeply suspicious of German capabilities, and for nearly the past two years have been building up a substantial force. The B1-bis is now present in numbers, and the stiffening this gives Allied lines is appreciated. The Belgian and Dutch forces are not very large, but are well supported by the British. German readiness is not optimal because every concentration along the front is visited by artillery or air each month.

Here is the butcher's bill for the German phase. The top report is the French, the other Dutch-Belgian. The French represent the land battle, The Low Countries losses are from the land battle and artillery.

[cpdeyoung]

13 November 1939

In China the Japanese and Chinese are in a sort of balance. Losses each month are annoying, but not crucial. Neither side seems to have the strength to mount a substantial offensive. Peking seems a long way off behind the wall of Japanese soldiers.

[LJBurstyn]

The success of the USN submarine effort against Japan was partly because of Japanese inability to come to a method of hurting the submarines (they failed to adequately equip their search planes with radar that the Americans could not counter and develop convoy technics that the British and Americans did in the Atlantic plus the absence of choke points for the submarines.) The Japanese simply did not have the ability to build LOTS and LOTS of search planes and escorts that the Allies did in the Atlantic (a much smaller ocean). Most of the successes of German and American submarines came against ships that were not in convoys. When the allies started to REQUIRE all ships be in convoys the German success rate against merchants dropped to nearly ZERO while the loss rate of submarines went up dramatically. Allied convoys had extra escorts that attacked any sign of submarines while the others remained in their position so wolf pack tactics failed to work. Another problems for both the Japanese and Allies were the different speeds of the ships which reduced the speed of the convoy--the Allies solved this by building Liberty ships which all had the same speed while the Japanese could not do this because so much of their merchants were old ship designs and they could not build the better merchants that the Allies could--lack of larger shipyards.

A good book on the German view of U-Boats in the war effort was written by Adm Donitz (unsure if that's spelled right) after the war. Adm Donitz was commander of the U-Boats and one of the few high ranking Germans found NOT-Guilty of war crimes. Early in the war German U-Boats would approach the allied ship and give the crew time to leave the ship before sinking it. This stopped when the Allies armed the merchants and developed quick responses to calls for help.

Another reason was the Americans adopting the wolf pack technics of the Germans.

[cpdeyoung]

11 December 1939

After preparations the Belgians and Dutch attacked and threw the Germans back from their territory in two places. The losses were rather even, but the psychological gains from throwing the Germans out were sweet.

[ArmouredLion]

January 40

Soviet production and technology have entered its golden era. Vast stretches of factories spring up overnight, providing the people with work and prosperity. Between the expanding military and industrial jobs, Stalin has spread the wealth of this prosperity among the people abundantly. His name is sung in praise from every street corner and field. Mother Russia's favorite son promises that this is only the beginning of Soviet success.

[ArmouredLion]

I'm about as knowledgeable on WW2 naval and air as I am on quantum physics. So thanks, Larry. I know you were in the navy... I'm sure it's your specialty. But to Chuck's point, I do remember that the wolfpacks had their best (and very good) successes on the Russian convoys and around Britain... need to go back and start doing some study. Been doing a little looking into the last versions of German U-Boats and their journeys to Antartica and flights out of Germany in the final days of the war. They were ultra advanced. They even had two massive transport subs that were immense.

[cpdeyoung]

8 January 1940

[LJBurstyn]

ORIGINAL: ArmouredLion

I'm about as knowledgeable on WW2 naval and air as I am on quantum physics. So thanks, Larry. I know you were in the navy... I'm sure it's your specialty. But to Chuck's point, I do remember that the wolfpacks had their best (and very good) successes on the Russian convoys and around Britain... need to go back and start doing some study. Been doing a little looking into the last versions of German U-Boats and their journeys to Antartica and flights out of Germany in the final days of the war. They were ultra advanced. They even had two massive transport subs that were immense.

Some analysis of the success early in the war against Russian Convoys and around Britain leads to a conclusion that Convoys were only good when they stay together until they reach their destination...a problem for small ports in Britain until they reorganized and convoys stayed together until they entered a port. And Britain made lots of improvements in their Ports on unloading the ships quickly. Earlier in the war (after American entrance) Convoys to Britain often did not form up until they were outside the harbors in the USA and broke up before they entered ports. This was hurt more by the lack of patrol planes in this time period. Later (early 1943) the British REQUIRED convoys to stay together until they entered the harbor areas (or very shallow waters where subs were dead meat to patrol planes and ships)--while the Americans formed convoys closer (shallower waters) to harbors where search planes and ships had the advantage.

Convoys to Russia were often faced with extremely bad weather which broke up the convoys making U-Boat captains happy with the "easy" pickings.

The last U-Boats were marvels of engineering. They could stay under longer without surfacing and had a sustainable top speed underwater of 17 Knots--extremely faster than the normal 5 knots. Even modern diesel subs have difficulty meeting this standard. This made them faster than many of the Corvettes the Allies built. Unfortunately for them (fortunate for us) they could not build enough of them to make a difference by the time they were developed and in production (thank Hitler for this delay--he spent more effort on the Vengeance weapons than actual war fighting weapons). Nuclear subs are faster but the rule of slower is quieter is still golden. Our SSBN's are capable of fast travel but they rarely go faster than 5 knots as at that speed they are quieter than the background noise of the oceans (underwater ground movement--fish noises and such). The Russians had an attack sub that could go faster than 30 knots but was detectable across the ENTIRE ocean when it reached this speed. One incident had this sub go under a US Carrier and it could be heard by the crew of the carrier without listening devices. We made it clear that if they tried this again we would SINK the sub--the Russians claimed the sub captain was not authorized to do this extremely provocative action.

EDIT: BTW I worked for the Navy but wasn't in the Navy. I was a civilian in a mostly military unit.

[ArmouredLion]

Great info... I was also reading they had anti-radar paint as well... like their last batches of aircraft. Not sure how you can mimic this type of convoy sub defense in game though...

[LJBurstyn]

It was interesting working for an Admiral who wanted his people to know a lot about submarines, ballistic missiles, the effects of a nuclear explosion/radiation and the history of submarines. And also backed his people when they were doing their job. Shortly after we moved our headquarters out of DC to nearby Virginia. The Admiral was in the line leading into our secured area when it was discovered he had forgotten his security badge--technically that meant he could not enter the area. when the Marine officer refused him entry a nearby officers ordered the Marine to let him into the secured area. The Marine refused and the Admiral backed him up--he went home to get his badge. There was another "incident" where I was involved and he backed me over one of his Navy Captains. Rear Admiral Levering Smith--father of the ballistic missile submarine.

[Bombur]

Any news on the game?

[ArmouredLion]

I'm up... might be an interesting turn...

[cpdeyoung]

The game is in a curious place. The Axis player was experienced with Japan, but not so much with Germany and Italy. Before he could become comfortable the hyperactive Soviets were running wild in the east. The Red Army stormed into Poland and Romania, catching the Germans on their back foot.

In the west the French and British were busy building a very strong defense, while the RAF was developed into a killing machine. The KM dream of challenging at sea was countered by ASW aircraft and lots of RN submarines.

In China a virtual stalemate has developed, while Italy remains neutral.

In effect the Germans are in a bad place, and the German player is examining options for future play.

This is my opinion only and may make the other players laugh at my ignorance.

Chuck

[AstroBlues]

What mistakes did Germany make in this game? In 1938 what should she be doing?

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: AstroBlues

What mistakes did Germany make in this game? In 1938 what should she be doing?

People attack before they are ready and screw up the game.

[cpdeyoung]

@AstroBlues, @Twotribes

Well, I would really like Larry to address that question.

From the point of view of the Allies we were given the time we needed to build up defenses. The French have built a lot of their fine B1-bis armor, and were persistent in influencing the BeNeLux countries diplomatically. This gave them good defensive positions. The Germans could not ignore the Soviet challenge to attack with strength in the west.

Chuck

[LJBurstyn]

Ok. You asked so here goes.

I had wanted to get the Soviet player to join me in defeating the West but the victory conditions precluded that...after all both Germany and the Soviets were Socialists countries. Although not the same kind of Socialist countries.

Germany was not ready for war in 1938 or 1939 for that matter. They were still building their new improved battleships (the first ships that had radar guidance for their main guns). If the war had waited until 1940 the Germans would have two really good battleships and several more heavy cruisers not to mention a lot more subs. The first month of the war was a disaster for British/French merchantmen as the few subs Germans had ready to sail took a heavy toll of them.

British and French players can outproduce the Germans soon after Aug 1938 in this game because of the ending of the "peace" penalty on the Allies. In real life this penalty lasted until early 1940..as the British Chamberlain still thought he could make peace with the Germans. Churchill was appointed Lord of the Admiralty. Chamberlain finally realized his error when the Germans invaded Benelux countries, he resigned in May of 1940 when the war hawk known as Churchill took over. Churchill had been warning of the war and their need to be ready but no one wanted to listen. . (In other words Churchill did not win the Prime Ministry position in an election he was appointed AFTER Chamberlain resigned.--although he did win it during the war.)

The French were in still a worse situation as they were prepared for trench warfare not a maneuver war. Even tho they had months to prepare during the "phony war" period after the Polish invasion they were still not prepared for combat. Their tanks and infantry were badly deployed plus being underequiped and when they finally tried to move to respond to the invasion of Benelux...they were overwhelmed by people fleeing the combat (including Belgium and Dutch soldiers). The Germans were ready for the shock of combat for the first time the British and French were not--this is partly reflected in the higher "efficiency" of the German troops...

I will admit the aggressiveness of the Soviet player did surprise me...and I had to "talk" him out of taking Romania completely and ceding part of Poland to me. I was greatly delayed by having to attack Romania instead of convincing them to join me...after I took France. Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria joined Germany after the invasion of Poland and the defeat of France (they were more afraid of the Soviets than Germany--they had seen what happened to the Baltic countries and the Soviet invasion of Poland). Germany promised them help in holding off the Soviets which they accepted reluctantly. Germany in one case fostered a coup which invited the Germans into their country.

The Benelux countries were determined to stay neutral so they only joined the Allies AFTER the Germans attacked. They joined the Allies early in this game as I was still trying to get Austria and Czechoslovakia to join me. One by Diplomatic Actions the other by sending in agents to lower their stability so I could threaten them. By the time I responded to the Benelux actions it was too late. Plus I got unlucky in my discord attacks...

[ernieschwitz]

I had wanted to get the Soviet player to join me in defeating the West but the victory conditions precluded that...after all both Germany and the Soviets were Socialists countries. Although not the same kind of Socialist countries.

There is some confusion about politics in the above. It is true that the Nationalist Socialist party began as a Socialist party, but their politics were twisted and distorted into first a popularist party, and later a fascist party (might is right). So the Nazi party was actually not a socialist party at all. I have heard this misunderstanding several times by in particular Americans, but want to put it to sleep now.

Secondly. The manual clearly states, do not wait until September 1939 until declaring war. I have made it this way for several reasons, one of them being that I don't want players to play some odd 20 turns, before going to war. That would be strange, and perhaps boring (I think so). Another reason is that I want a more "what-if" kind of scenario. That is players are able to do stuff that didn't happen in real life. Thus starting off in September 1939, seems wrong. I think especially the events governing the take-over of Czechoslovakia need to be modeled. Another reason why I am not going to change the starting date, in any way, is that it is more than just moving a few borders. There is the research governing how much China has lost, which is tough, but not impossible, but more to the point would be the OOB changes.

The victory conditions, which are public, are made on purpose so that the USSR can be flexible in its choice of friends and foes. A permanent alliance with anybody however is not something that is possible. All to often in version 2, it was found that the Soviet player and the Axis player chose to become best buddies permanently. Something that feels, to me, completely wrong, and certainly does not mimic the second world war.

All in all, I feel that I made an excellent attempt at making what I wanted. I also think that the game can be very fun, if played optimally, and not with an eye on history for when to do things. I like that each game can be wildly different, and I think that is the charm of the game.

[ArmouredLion]

This game has more than 'charm'... it's fantastic intellectual undertaking... and I'm as hard a critic as I am aggressive.

This game is a framework of WW2. Not an exact retracing of history. Like a dance step (cha-cha for example) two dancers can dance the very same dance with the very same steps if rehearsed properly. It could be a mirror, again and again. Yes, we could recreate the entire WW2 to a near 'T' if all players rehearsed and executed our 'steps' according to history... and get the same results.

This isn't what this game is about... nor would I want it to be.

Larry is an excellent historian and player. But the dance of 'historical WW2' ended just after Chezklosovakia fell to his treats and then Germany lost control of Romania. Once Romania was out of his control, 'history' went spiraling in another direction. Same could be said with the Bellux countries.

This game is more about grabbing someone a new partner and dancing with them for the 1st time... having to adjust and take risks, pushing and pulling them to see how far they can and are willing to go. That is refreshing and exciting. That is truly a great strategic, tactical, and phycological undertaking.

Good tacticians must always be flexible, always be able to consider themselves, their opponents, and their situation and make a decision based on all three working together. Larry is a good player, but his great knowledge of history and how he wanted to 'work his grand strategy' became blinders that led him down the slaughter shoot of unforeseen events and the unexpected moves of his opponents. We all get a bad hand on occasion and compound the problems with not seeing the forest among the trees. Artidagger did me dirty with a ole' fashion woodshed beat-down some months back... twice--back-to-back. I still bear the scars... but I learned... and went once more into the breach wiser and humbler (well sort of-- I am a bit of a blow hard still).

[AstroBlues]

Thank you for the answers concerning Germany. I may be playing Germany too cautious. I think trying the threaten war card on Czechoslovakia in 38 may seem like a big risk. If it fails, then in 38 Germany is at war with France. If trying to wait and get them diplomatically, Germany may be putting resources that would be used in other places. Any other player had Germany declare war on Czechoslovakia and Poland at the same time. Say, May of 39?