Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: moses

Those who believe Germany has already lost the War by Dec 41 will never accept that Japan has any chance.

Gotta number myself among this group..., with one distinction. When Hitler and the Nazi's invaded the USSR they lost the war. To defeat more than 3 times the number of people in such a huge territory they would need major cooperation from among the invaded. The amount of "help" they actually did recieve proves that the potential was there..., but Hitler and his political doctrine pretty much put paid to any real chance of getting the Russians to do a lot of the fighting for him. Seeking a purely military victory over the "untermench" pretty much guaranteed a German failure, especially with the need to hold down much of Europe behind them and keep the British busy.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: moses

Those who believe Germany has already lost the War by Dec 41 will never accept that Japan has any chance.

Gotta number myself among this group..., with one distinction. When Hitler and the Nazi's invaded the USSR they lost the war. To defeat more than 3 times the number of people in such a huge territory they would need major cooperation from among the invaded. The amount of "help" they actually did recieve proves that the potential was there..., but Hitler and his political doctrine pretty much put paid to any real chance of getting the Russians to do a lot of the fighting for him. Seeking a purely military victory over the "untermench" pretty much guaranteed a German failure, especially with the need to hold down much of Europe behind them and keep the British busy.

But something like 20 kms from the Cremlin...and some little more from the center of Leningrad in late 41...how can we argue that the Germans didn't have the chance of winning that incredible struggle!? The chance was there Imho. Human mistakes, Fate and Winter did history, but it's kinda foolish say that the USSR could not be defeated in 41/42.
With the japs in their back probably the Ivans had collapsed.
0.2 cents

Ok there are many things that you can factor into this. First off if japan had intended to invade russia i highly doubt pearl harbor would have happened when it did.

Also the japanese had one great advatanage (granted they had many disadvantages) that the germans didnt, long range aircraft. If the japanese had managed to get a foot hold in sibera then posibly the russian industry that stalin had wisely moved behind the urals might have been subjected to japanese bomber attacks. Also a 2 front war for the Soviets would have meant that vital war material would have been striped from the west.

With the way things are the in the game Japan is always going to be at war with the US on Dec 7 thats just a game premiss. So i highly doubt that japan would have realy considered an attack on the soviets after 12/7/41 but, we arent japan and if we fail millions of loyal japanese citizens are killed or deported to syberia to work in gulags so it works out

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner
But something like 20 kms from the Cremlin...

I'm not sure that the loss of Moscow would have done anything to Russians. On contrary it would've strengthen their resolve to fight.

Although I can't blame Germans for this misunderstanding of Russian people. During 1940 campaign the loss of capital inevitably brought the capitulation of state.

I know it's not very good example, but Napoleon in 1812 thought that the capture of Moscow would bring an immediate victory too. Russians just kept fighting and won.

On having Japanese from other side. I don’t think it would’ve changed anything. During civil war of 1918-1924 communist Russia lost 90% of the territory. Far East was occupied by Japan, south by French and North by British. Russians just kept fighting. And Russians won again.

There are countries which never gave up the fighting when their existence was threatened. Russia, Britain, USA to name the few.

Those who believe Germany has already lost the War by Dec 41 will never accept that Japan has any chance.

Those who believe that there was still potential for a Russian collapse should believe that a Japanese offensive might have some chance or might even increase the odds of a Russian collapse.

Yes, but the rule internet Bulleton Boards is, "He who shouts loudest and longest, with the most absurd idea, wins!"

And then it gets coded into the game.

[:'(]

-F-

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner
Human mistakes, Fate and Winter did history

Don't forget the Italians [:'(] - without Mussolini's adventure in Greece, Barbarossa could have started earlier and reach Moscow before winter.

But well, I doubt this would have changed much. The Ivans would have continued fighting - especially with the German behavior in the occupied territory in mind. Big mistake to treat the people like sh1t - can you spell 'Partisan'?

Edit: Ooops, forgot the smily. Sorry, couldn't resist [;)]

I don't think that arriving to 20 km of Kremlin is so important at it is pointed by some. The German war potential was really spent at this time, not due to the German soldier failure but due to bad political and economical decision before.

Also the Germans arrived at 20 km of Stalingrad in August 1942 and has not yet taken the whole city 3 months later. And even if Moscow fell (and I doubt very strongly this), I doubt Soviet Union would have collapsed. The Soviet State was probably strong enough to cope with it.

Yes, but the rule internet Bulleton Boards is, "He who shouts loudest and longest, with the most absurd idea, wins!"

And then it gets coded into the game.

I think it may seem that way because eventually people get tired of responding. So as the last person posting in a thread it appears that one viewpoint has prevailed. But I don't think the developers change anything unless they believe its a good idea. Really who who work on a project like WITP unless they were really motivated to make a landmark game.

All the changes that I have seen (even those I don't like) Have at least seemed rational to me. Some changes have unintended consequences. There are some spots where trying to make a bad situation a little bit better just can't satisfy many people. But thats the price you pay when you try to improve things.

I don't really think small groups of posters have any power at all to get changes made just through loud and persistant posting.

It is cool though, that the developers listen, respond and occasionally agree with the views of players.

ORIGINAL: moses

I think it may seem that way because eventually people get tired of responding. So as the last person posting in a thread it appears that one viewpoint has prevailed. But I don't think the developers change anything unless they believe its a good idea.

This is correct. One only needs look at the latest Yamato thread to see that. [:D]

I was (partially) kidding about lunacy being coded.

I've played WitP long enough to know that it all eventually comes out in the wash. Some changes I think go in the "collossally stupid" catagory. Some I could give a rat's ass. Some I think are worthwhile. In the end, I think the game is playable and enjoyable. It's not at all historical (would be my preference). But it does make for a fun (very complicated) version of Axis & Allies. I've gotten past letting it affect my blood pressure. When things affect my in-progess games dramtically (like river crossings, or LBA accuracy, or ASW routines, or PDUs), I deal with it. I'm not going to go thru the hassel of a restart.

The simple fact is that, I've played WitP since the say it was avaiable for download, and I'll be staying up until 2am once again, working on turns tonight.

-F-

I was (partially) kidding about lunacy being coded.

I know.....but you are still a popcorn hog

I agree there are things in the game that could stand improving. (what wargame doesn't in at least one's opinion) however i would choose to agree to disagree with the statement that the game is "not at all historical" On the contrary I find overall that the game gives a very historical feel when players dont' go overboard with the detailed control they have over their side's forces.

I know.....but you are still a popcorn hog

OT: i'm trying the popcorn diet. A friend of mine lost thirty pounds on it, though it did cost him over $3000 in going to the movies![:D]

On the contrary I find overall that the game gives a very historical feel when players dont' go overboard with the detailed control they have over their side's forces.

But that's problem. You're fighting human nature.

In an AI game, you can (mostly) play historically, and get a (mostly) historical result.

But let's face it, PBEM can be -very- competitive, particulary in your first PBEM games. The more I've played, the less I am with actually concerned with WINNING, and more of simply giving my opponents a good game, and enjoying it myself. I have more important things to expend my blood pressure on.

But all us are greatly tempted to do anything they can get away with (and we can get away with quite a lot!), in order to win (or even just gain an edge). H_ll, every turn I get, I'm tempted to look for that edge, and that's part of what makes PBEM fun - the unpredictability.

It's complicated by the fact that we all obviously have very differnet opinions of what was historically possible. Nik, you indicated that you believe that that between Germany and Japan, that Russia would capituate. Fine. To you then, a Japanese win in WitP ove Russia -is- historical. I on the other hand, believe that Germany signed their death-warrent on June 22, 1941; with or without Japan's help. For me, Japan attacking Russia in WitP is lunacy. Here you would say that WitP is "historcal". I say "Yeah... Right..."

-F-

you indicated that you believe that that between Germany and Japan, that Russia would capituate. Fine

Actually, i never said that. I said that it was possible in 41/42 that if Stalin's Far Eastern forces were not what they appeared to be and if Japan's "attack" on Siberia was pressed home and managed to succeed, that Stalin would most likely fall back and bide time vs. try to reinforce and push the Japanese out. Germany and their threat to European Russia were far more dangerous to Russia's survival than anything going on in the 'a$$ end' of their country which by and large was undeveloped wilderness and snow.

But let's face it, PBEM can be -very- competitive, particulary in your first PBEM games.

True....but thats the price you pay for getting a wargame that gives players so much detail control....a grigsby trademark and one i'm grateful for. It does however require you, if you want a historical type 'game' to seek out players with a similar mindset. I've managed to do so with my PBEM partners....our games are very enjoyable for the most part and historically plausible.

If you partner with a "Lunancy" type PBEM'er "anything goes" type player...expect to get a wargame that feels more like a game than a wargame. I've yet to come across any wargame that cant be "gamed" in one way or another.

I can't wait for the War in Rusia game thread to open.

Some will argue that even should Moscow, Leningrad, Stalengrad all fall will massive numbers of russian troops captured it won't matter. Russia will fight to the death.

I'm curious. If the war in Russia game allows for the possibility of German victory, how many players will declare it by definition non-historical and or non-accurate?

For my part every time I read of this conflict I can't help feel that the suffering of the russians was so extreme and their resistance so amasing that it could not be repeated. I place it in the same catagory as a Midway battle. (ie if we fought that battle 100 times how often would we have won.)
If the war in Russia could be fought 100 times what would be the range of results. I don't believe it is 100% Russian victory.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is a war room! [:)]

Some will argue that even should Moscow, Leningrad, Stalengrad all fall will massive numbers of russian troops captured it won't matter. Russia will fight to the death.

Win, lose or draw; given the Nazis' racial ideas, it WAS a fight to the death for the Russian People.

One note to this arguement. The Historical results are based on Stalin's having done virtually EVERYTHING wrong. From failing to believe reports that the German's were massing for an attack to putting the great bulk of his forces forward along the border to having shot his officer corps to insisting on counterattacks to....... So if we are going to look at POSSIBILITIES, haw about a more prepared and better commanded Red Army deployed primarily back along the "Stalin Line" with the STAVKA being run by soldiers rather than Stalin's demands. If we are going to postulate one maniacal dictator not making a series of bungling mistakes, why not both?

Having read Alan Clarke's Barbarossa, I feel that most people don't realize just how close the Soviet Union came to losing the war in 41. I do not subscribe to the "Germany lost as soon as it stepped foot on Russian soil" theory. No nation can suffer the reverses that Russia did and not teeter on the brink.

It is true that the Russian winter combined with German faults in logistical planning made them fall short of their goals but tempered against this is the simple fact the Russian winter counter-attack failed in it's ultimate goal of destroying Army Group Center as well. the counter-offensive also represented Russia's last gasp in terms of effective offensive action. (for the time being) They succeeded in hurting the Germans and pushing them back but by late winter 42, the Siberian reserves used were themselves cadres burned out by the fighting. Added to the Kharkov disaster that followed the Red Army remained battered, bruised and still needing to learn the lessons of operational warfare in the modern century.

Given time, Russia's vast manpower reserves could address the losses but the gears of industrial production would take far longer to make up for the material losses and even then only by ruthlessly restricting production varients (and focusing on tanks)

Given this situation, thats why i believe that any Japanese action in Siberia would be treated conservatively. Russia could in the end, afford to trade space for time here. Time has almost always been the friend of Russia. Too many calamities either all at once or in quick succession however would bring down even the beast of the East. Remember the collapse in WWI.

If the war in Russia game allows for the possibility of German victory

You get into the debate of how they define "victory", and what is the justification for it.

My defination of "victory" should be, given that the simulation is historical, if you do better than your historical counterparts, then you should "win". But if the simulation, well isn't, and that the yard-stick of "did I do better than history", is pointless.

For me, if WiR is an accurate historical simulation, then if the German player were exceed the over-all gains of his historical counterparts, he would win. Maybe he doesn't caputure Moscow or Leningrad. But maybe he rolls to Urals (or whatever). If the game is an accurate simulation, and he has accomplished more than his historical counterparts, he wins.

I can also buy the point that, so are less concerned with historical accuracy, and really do want to explore some of the more (IMO) outlandish situations. Maybe there's a scenario where Patton stages a coup, takes over military, marches past the Elbe, and leads the charge with the remaining German forces into Russia. At that point, the historical yard-stick is pointless, because it's absurd to begin with. Despite my [8|] reaction, even I would still find it an amusing scenario to play. Just don't call it a historical possability. If the game allows for those outlandish possabilities, the victory conditions SHOULD take those possabilities into account fairly, and victory conditions should be written accordingly.

-F-