Italian Surrender

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

I wish that in 1938-1939 the French/British sat down and ran proper war games on the possible outcome of situations at hand.

warspite1

The problem though is that the General Staffs can run all the scenarios they wanted to - but as with computers and 'garbage in - garbage out' so with war game studies. The simple fact was the French (and the British) were working to different timescales to the Germans - they were essentially fighting different wars. If you believe, as General Gamelin did, that it would take NINE DAYS! for the Germans to reach the Meuse and amass sufficient strength to try and force a crossing (despite General Pretelat concluding that it would take just 60 hours in 1938) then the man in charge wins and its his assumptions that are input.

[BillRunacre]

Thanks for all the posts and discussion on this subject. You may have already seen within the update notes that things have changed with regards to Italy now, so that:

- Italy will now surrender to Germany and have her remaining territory taken over by the Germans when her National Morale falls below 20%.
- The Axis should place German or Axis Minor units in Tirana and Scutari in Albania before Italy's National Morale falls this low, as otherwise Albania will liberate itself.
- Naples and Palmero are now Alternate Italian Capitals. This is so that if Rome is retaken by the Germans it will not make Italy surrender.

Enjoy! [:)]

[Hubert Cater]

Great stuff Bill and let us know what you think as we had to rework a few things in the game engine to make this happen, but I agree with Bill that I think this is a significant improvement so definitely worth the effort [:)]

[sIg3b]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: Leadwieght

I have to agree with CapitaineHaddock. A "game" where one side can't win is not much of game. Nor is it necessarily a particularly good history lesson.

In SC3, I think that between two human players of roughly equal ability The Allied player will have a slight advantage (maybe 60/40) and I'm fine with that, because the Axis player always has the chance to "steal" a victory if he moves quickly enough in the early years, before Russian and US production overwhelms the Axis.

And, IMHO, that describes pretty well the "historicity" of the period 1939-1941, if not the actual course of events. I think history is fluid and there are seldom, if ever pre-determined outcomes, especially in something as complex and chancy as a world war. Sorry for the sermon, but I'm a bit passionate about the subject of freewill vs. determinism.

I love punching Nazis. The problem with too much of the wargaming community is, really, that they are soft on fascism.

A WW2 game at this level that tries to make both sides equal is of no interest to me, because they were not and trying to make them so is not only poor history, but morally obscene.

Since fascism is now making a bit of a comeback I'm even less inclined to give this a pass than I used to be.

You are undermining your own case. Assuming German defeat was inevitable means downplaying any Alied heroism and/or sound strategic decisions.

If the 3rd Reich was fated to lose, then why did the Allies try so hard? According to you, they must have been stupid, because they should have been pretty relaxed about Hitler and not breaking a sweat. [;)]