Historical play

[RCHarmon]

I don't understand why historical has a negative connotation. If a player wants historical plausibility what that means simply is that the player wants the historical armies with the historical equipment with the historical problems and to play out the "what ifs". It does not mean to replay history.

The Soviet player does this from turn one. He runs. He wants the historical Soviet army and to play the "what ifs".

In like manner, the Axis player will not replicate the many mistakes made and will play out the "what ifs".

Historical plausibility is what is wanted or you might as well pass out ray guns.

I know there is some strange debate about alternate histories where the Axis loses by 1945 period. No matter 1945 is it.

Germany does lose the war. In the end it cannot fight a two front war and I am glad it lost it and it would have been better if it had been beaten sooner than 1945. Even Churchill understood that the Axis were making serious mistakes that were speeding up the end of the war in our favor. Churchill referred to Hitler as the corporal who was leading the German General Staff.

Again I will say, a historical representation of the Eastern Front will stand on its own with no need for manipulation.

[tancred41]

Excellent post. Simple, straightforward and true. Captures precisely what I have been seeking in wargames since spending most of the summer of '76 in a friend's basement playing and replaying Avalon Hill's "Third Reich" !

[bairdlander2]

I am thinking of trying as Axis and making the same moves with same units as was done in reality.What would be the results?

[henri51]

RCH Nice post, but it neatly sidesteps the basic question of historical determinacy. In other words, most people would agree that in most wars, results sometimes hinge on a knife edge and some insignificant detail has turned the tide of battle. So although almost everyone would agree that historical accuracy meaning the same equipment and circumstances as you say is desirable; some including me would disagree that the result was always foreordained. For example, few would argue that had Eisenhower guessed wrong and the D-day invasion and the unpredictable weather not favored the invasion, D-day could have been a huge disaster. Other factors like Hitler refusing to release the Panzers for 3 days ensured that the US invasion fronts would not face any Panzer divisions for the first week (despite Hollywood movies to the contrary), thus greatly favoring the invasion. What would have been the result of Midway and some other battles had not the Allies broken both the German and Japanese codes or had the US Carriers been in Pearl Harbor as the Japanese expected when they attacked?

Had Hitler allowed 6th Army to break out of Stalingrad earlier, it is fairly certain that they could have done so, so I would argue that any game that absolutely prevents 6th Army from breaking out when the German Army is controlled by a human player may suffer from historical "Political correctness". I am not arguing about this game with that example, because I don't know if that situation actually occurs in the game. But I hope that you understand my point.

My preference is for games that allow some amount of "what-if" conditions: what if Hitler had allowed the early release of the Panzers? What if Patton had been replaced by an inferior General who had not planned the Bulge relief in advance and had taken two weeks to reach Bastogne?

Henri

[fbs]

The way I see it, the problem is that people believe that in order to win the game as Germans Germany has to win the war.

The victory conditions should be such (and I believe they are such) that even with Germany losing the war, the German player can still win the game.

[Judith57]

the problem is that people believe that in order to win the game as Germans Germany has to win the war.

[Tazak]

The biggest challange is that people like to try and learn from the mistakes that both sides made during the conflict. In a game where you are free from the interfering of Hitler/Stalin you will not see the same major mistakes as history has recorded.
You wont get this unless you have 2 players who agree to follow the histroical orders that were forced on the armed forces by their masters.

For the germans - the russians should be limited to histroical OOB, they should fight from forward positions during 1941, they should attack in late 1942 rather than just turtle up until 1943
for the Russians - the germans should not take cities they didn't/couldn't take, the germans should not pull part of their force out of Russia during the blizzard, they should attack in a kursk like situation and waste their armoured formations.

Sorry but even with the best of intentions from Gary/2by3/matrix games the game would not be anywhere near as fun as it is if the entire 1941 GC was fought in this way, they have produced some really good scenario's in the expansion pack all of which put you in a histroical position at various stages of the war.

This is as close to a histroical game as has been produced, you cannot play 4 years of war and expect things to follow histroy as close as some people want without scripting 99% of the turns.

[pzgndr]

The victory conditions should be such (and I believe they are such) that even with Germany losing the war, the German player can still win the game.

There is some modest improvement in the victory conditions being implemented in the next patch but it still has a long ways to go IMHO. I just added No Retreat! from Victory Point Games to my collection and was reviewing it this weekend. I found the Designers Notes consistent with most all other Russian Front games I've played over the years regarding Sudden Death victory conditions and why most games have them:

The Sudden Death victory condition is very intriguing and keeps player paying attention to the current Victory Point (VP) score. Here is how it works: every three Game Turns [6 months], this victory condition is checked against a sum of VPs that the Initiative Player (the Axis during the first half of the game, the Soviets during the latter half; and both sides on Game Turn 11) has. If the Initiative player has sufficient VPs at that moment, the game is over and that player wins outright.

A sufficient sum of VPs are not that easy to get, but not impossibly hard to obtain either. This fact will stop your opponent from becoming complacent (i.e., from “knowing” in advance what the historical outcome of the war was; e.g., “Bah, I can just withdraw and lose Kiev without a fight! The Axis never got farther than Stalingrad anyway and I’ll get tons of new units in 1944.”). Also, because only the side with the Initiative can win by Sudden Death, neither side can afford do loose too much ground too quickly, even if this is tactically a good idea on the map, hence the game title: No Retreat!

Take away this very fundamental feature from any Russian Front game like WITE and you get what you get. [8|]

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: henri51

RCH Nice post, but it neatly sidesteps the basic question of historical determinacy. In other words, most people would agree that in most wars, results sometimes hinge on a knife edge and some insignificant detail has turned the tide of battle.

I think that could sometimes be said about battles in the age of musket and sabre, but not as much in the 20th century. Once armies reached millions strong, it was less and less likely that a single moment or tactical event would change the course of a war.

So although almost everyone would agree that historical accuracy meaning the same equipment and circumstances as you say is desirable; some including me would disagree that the result was always foreordained.

Case by case, for me. To my mind, Germany had probably lost the second world war on 23.06.1941. It just took four years to prove it. She had certainly lost it by November 1941.

For example, few would argue that had Eisenhower guessed wrong and the D-day invasion and the unpredictable weather not favored the invasion, D-day could have been a huge disaster.

I would argue the point. The German's only chance perhaps lay in the scenario where the Allies crossed at Pas de Calais. Given the strength of the German defences, that was always unlikely. Once they were ashore, it was just a question of time. Given how much coastline they had to choose from, given absolute air supremacy, given they had plenty of 15 inch guns that would give any counterattacking Panzer Commander a bad day, it's hard to see the Allies being stopped given the quality of their planning. I can just about see Omaha failing if 12th SS Panzer had been deployed in Normandy and a company or two of Pzgr and a few stugs had made it to the beach before the Americans got up the bluffs, but that aside the ability of the allies to interdict German reinforcements to any bridgehead area made success pretty likely.

Other factors like Hitler refusing to release the Panzers for 3 days ensured that the US invasion fronts would not face any Panzer divisions for the first week (despite Hollywood movies to the contrary), thus greatly favoring the invasion.

Well, US fronts rarely faced Panzers until Mortain anyway. By the end of the first week, 3 Panzer Divisions, a Pzgr Division and a Tiger battalion had reached Normandy. Of the other Units that would eventually make it, 9th and 10th SS were in Russia, SSLAH was not comabat ready having incorporated huge numbers of replacements recently, SSDR and 116th were hamstrung by lack of motor vehicles and 9th Panzer was not combat ready either.

Given how difficult it was to shift large motorised units along the French road and rail network in Northern france, i don't think they did too badly. They also felt this may have been a diversion. Given Dragoon, such a suspiscion is understandable.

What would have been the result of Midway and some other battles had not the Allies broken both the German and Japanese codes or had the US Carriers been in Pearl Harbor as the Japanese expected when they attacked?

I don't know much about the PTO, but my understanding was the Japanese were actually out there hoping the American flattops would turn up. Had the Americans lost a couple of carriers in 1941, I'd have put the effect at lengthening the war by maybe 6 months to a year. Once the Americans started pumping out the Hellcat and the essex class, the game was up for Japan.

Had Hitler allowed 6th Army to break out of Stalingrad earlier, it is fairly certain that they could have done so, so I would argue that any game that absolutely prevents 6th Army from breaking out when the German Army is controlled by a human player may suffer from historical "Political correctness".

I disagree. 6th Army was home to a collection of shattered infantry units. In some divisions the casualties amongst the combat arms were horrendous. Several weeks before encirclement, the Germans had sent their horses out of the city as they weren't required and could be better fed and cared for further back. When he was surrounded, therefore, Paulus lacked the muscle to move anywhere fast, and certainly wouldn't have been able to move the bulk of his artillery or wounded.

Moving beat up infantry formations into the open in poor weather with Russian mobile formations milling about was a big ask. Throw in the fact that he saved Germany from defeat in the south in 1942 by tieing down Russian troops that could have been sealing off the Caucasus forces, and breakout was a pipedream IMHO.

My preference is for games that allow some amount of "what-if" conditions: what if Hitler had allowed the early release of the Panzers?

No real difference. Releasing them and actually geting them to Normandy in a combat ready state are two completely different things.

What if Patton had been replaced by an inferior General who had not planned the Bulge relief in advance and had taken two weeks to reach Bastogne?

The Germans had bypassed the town and were stopped short of the Meuse by other forces. Whilst welcome to the brave defenders of Bastogne (except for the 101st who felt they didn't need him by all accounts) the Germans didn't fail because of Patton. They failed because they set themselves an impossible task with forces incapable of achieving it in the weather, geographical and operational conditions that were prevalent.

All that said, my respect for the Avatar. Lee Marvin is one mean looking warrior.

Regards,
ID

[entwood]

ORIGINAL: RCH

I don't understand why historical has a negative connotation. If a player wants historical plausibility what that means simply is that the player wants the historical armies with the historical equipment with the historical problems and to play out the "what ifs". It does not mean to replay history.

The Soviet player does this from turn one. He runs. He wants the historical Soviet army and to play the "what ifs".

In like manner, the Axis player will not replicate the many mistakes made and will play out the "what ifs".

Historical plausibility is what is wanted or you might as well pass out ray guns.

I know there is some strange debate about alternate histories where the Axis loses by 1945 period. No matter 1945 is it.

Germany does lose the war. In the end it cannot fight a two front war and I am glad it lost it and it would have been better if it had been beaten sooner than 1945. Even Churchill understood that the Axis were making serious mistakes that were speeding up the end of the war in our favor. Churchill referred to Hitler as the corporal who was leading the German General Staff.

Again I will say, a historical representation of the Eastern Front will stand on its own with no need for manipulation.

Some players want to basically do whatever they want or can get away with and that is their game, and many have already decimated the game with gambits and exploits. Some other players want a higher degree of historical plausibility where the player has additional constraints and randomness that the historical commanders had to contend with.

I think one could say the Axis came fairly close to knocking out the Soviets in 1941 and did not do so bad in 1942 and had one last chance in 1943. If things had gone better in North Africa, the Axis got a higher degree of Finnish and/or even some Japanese participation, or a big Japanese win at Midway, not declared war on the U.S.A to buy a bit more time, and a few other things...it might have worked out better for them until the atomic bomb was available.

[Carolie86]

The victory conditions should be such that even with Germany losing the war, the German player can still win the game.

[Farfarer61]

No. I want the rule set to superbly reflect the combat interaction of units and the mechanics of supply. I want to use hindsight and expertise to win a decisive victory for either side. Leave the strategy to me - history can take a hike.

[jwduquette1]

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

No. I want the rule set to superbly reflect the combat interaction of units and the mechanics of supply. I want to use hindsight and expertise to win a decisive victory for either side. Leave the strategy to me - history can take a hike.

+1.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

No. I want the rule set to superbly reflect the combat interaction of units and the mechanics of supply. I want to use hindsight and expertise to win a decisive victory for either side. Leave the strategy to me - history can take a hike.

Fine, let's throw history out the window. First thing to go are those leader ratings which after all are historically based. Let's have all leaders on both sides start as 4s for all ratings and let your "strategy" determine whose good and who isn't. Next thing to go are those morale and experience ratings which are also historically based. Everybody starts out as a 50 and let your "strategy" determine how much their quality improves. Oh and there's that first turn surprise rule, got to get rid of that also because it is historically based. Hmm, seems what you end up with is two armies of equal quality except one army is a lot bigger than the other one and it begins on the defensive. Sounds like fun.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: jaw

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

No. I want the rule set to superbly reflect the combat interaction of units and the mechanics of supply. I want to use hindsight and expertise to win a decisive victory for either side. Leave the strategy to me - history can take a hike.

Fine, let's throw history out the window. First thing to go are those leader ratings which after all are historically based. Let's have all leaders on both sides start as 4s for all ratings and let your "strategy" determine whose good and who isn't. Next thing to go are those morale and experience ratings which are also historically based. Everybody starts out as a 50 and let your "strategy" determine how much their quality improves. Oh and there's that first turn surprise rule, got to get rid of that also because it is historically based. Hmm, seems what you end up with is two armies of equal quality except one army is a lot bigger than the other one and it begins on the defensive. Sounds like fun.

[:D] well said!

[Farfarer61]

Well not ALL history then

[Toby42]

Bull!! If you don't study and enjoy history, go play domino's.....

[Scook_99]

Iron Duke, +1, all your points come from good research and using decent logic. There would be some more to add, but what you said stands on it's own......

As far a historical goes, I believe this will be about as close as we come in a game. We are given the units that start, a really good reinforcement/ withdrawal schedule, and everything else in between is up to us. Is it perfect? No. There will be some more tightening up here, but operationally, it's as close as I have seen. Operational tempo is too high, but I prefer that to too low (WWI....AAAHHHHHH!).

So...here is what I am thinking for those that want full control (and I like this idea), after they do War in the West, et al., they can do the whole European Theatre beginning on September 1, 1939. It is set up with historical troops, and reinforcements for the next month. After that, GG, Joel, and the gang can figure out production points and manpower, and you get to build whatever you want to your heart's content. Don't be disappointed if you can't have 40 panzer divisions for the invasion of France! I think that would be the best solution and Europe is yours to master.

I think Europe and The Pacific should be kept separate. One turn on a world scale would be too much time for my tastes (beside, War is the Pacific is close to being perfect). Leave WitE alone, it's great, give me all of Europe to be a megalomaniac!

[RCHarmon]

My original post was a polite way of saying that WITE is NOT historical. It could be greatly improved if it was historical.


The Soviet side is afraid of history. They refuse to acknowledge that if Mainstein was in charge of the eastern front instead of Hitler that anything would have been different.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: RCH

My original post was a polite way of saying that WITE is NOT historical. It could be greatly improved if it was historical.


The Soviet side is afraid of history. They refuse to acknowledge that if Mainstein was in charge of the eastern front instead of Hitler that anything would have been different.

History? If? You don't need much to contradict yourself, do you?

History is, Manstein was not in charge of Eastern Front.

In Hitler's Führer state it would have been not very probable, to say the least, that Hitler would have give away command of "his own" front, the very peak of his "Kampf". Plus, the fanatical Austrian Corporal detested more and more 1. Manstein's "operieren" (maneuvre warfare), 2. high staff attitude, 3. Prussian habitus.

Regards