Introducing a "homemade historical variants" -concept

After action reports for Commander Europe at War.

Moderators: rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4744
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Introducing a "homemade historical variants" -concept

Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

I think Norway would be very sceptical against allowing German troops and airplanes to land in Norway if the Allies had intervened in some way in Norway. Norway would probably have tried to deal with the problem alone as a neutral and probably make some kind of resistance agains the Allied aggression.

Norwegians were in general shocked by the German aggression under Hitler. Not only the invasion of Poland, but the Anschluss, invasion of Czechoslovakia and poor treatment of non-nazis in Germany. Becoming part of the German war machine by joining Germany would be very very difficult for the Norwegian Government. For that to happen the Allies would have to so something like terror bombing Norwegian cities. Then the Norwegian could allow the Germans to have fighter bases in Norway to shoot down such Allied bombers. However, it's very very unlikely that the Allies would simply do something like that against Norway. The Allies would know they would push Norway towards Germany with no gain at all. The Allied main goal was to stop the Swedish iron ore from reaching Germany. Britain didn't need Norway. They just had to ensure Norway didn't fall in German hands. Churchill knew that a German controlled Norway meant German airbases that could reach Scotland and Scapa Flow, German submarine bases closer to the North Atlantic etc. So he feared that the Germans would invade Norway and wanted a pre-emptive strike against Norway to ptevent that.
Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Introducing a "homemade historical variants" -concept

Post by Cybvep »

Thanks for the response. I know these Wiki articles, but it's always interesting to hear the perspective of a Norwegian who is interested in WWII.

You are right about the invasion of Denmark. Resistance was futile, even the terrain didn't favour the defenders. Norway was more demanding logistically due to its geography and rather poor infrastructure, but it was obvious that it didn't stand a chance ALONE. The Germans paid dearly for that invasion, though. Their naval losses basically made Sea Lion impossible IMO. Even if the Axis gained air superiority over the Channel and southern GB, a determined RN intervention would be disastrous for the greatly weakened Kriegsmarine. And it's not enough to control the sea and the air for a day or two, but for weeks, because you need to provide logistical support for the troops. Even if the Kriegsmarine was at its full strength and the Luftwaffe performed better than IRL, the invasion would have only a slight chance of success, but after Norway, it was a pipe dream.
Finland1944
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Introducing a "homemade historical variants" -concept

Post by Finland1944 »

Maybe something can be done to make Sea Lion less likely to succeed? And if Axis fail, maybe something is needed to encourage Axis player to continue the game. If Sea Lion failure automatically equals "an acceptable reason for surrender", failure is not a real risk: a choice that can have bad consequences.
Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Introducing a "homemade historical variants" -concept

Post by Cybvep »

The Sea Lion is already hard :). Making it harder would be bad for the game. And even if it succeeds, it doesn't guarantee the Axis victory and in most cases it means 1942 Barbarossa. Remember that we want the Allied player to fear the German invasion in 1940-1941, as this was historically the case. Even if it doesn't happen in most games, it should be a viable option in SOME games. The Axis player can also avoid the mistakes that RL Germans made etc.

Due to the way the game is balanced, I think that most Axis players will surrender if the Sea Lion fails. There is simply not much point in continuing the game further, because you know the outcome in 1940-1941, which is not good.
Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4744
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Introducing a "homemade historical variants" -concept

Post by Peter Stauffenberg »

Sealion is harder in GS v3.0 than in GS v2.1. The main reason is the changed naval rules with retreats. Transports easily retreat so the Axis player can't create a blob of transported garrisons to protect their vulnerable DD's and BB's providing supply. It's easier for the Royal Navy to get to these core units.

Now you don't have much time as the Axis in Sealion to get a port. Before you could seal off the English channel and have some turns with no interference by the Royal Navy. The changed naval rules means that enemy units can sail through transports. So you can't form a blockade with Axis garrison transports.

I think that to do a Sealion as the Axis you need to build DD's or subs from the start of the game and maybe even have an over committed BEF in France. If you can destroy several UK units in France you can hope to get to a port early enough to not get your supply warships crushed.

Sealion isn't something you just decide upon in the Summer of 1940. You need to prepare for the possibility of Sealion.

A good alternative to Sealion could be to fake a Sealion to draw out the Royal Navy and bombard these ships instead. Then you sail your transports back to port in France.
Finland1944
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Introducing a "homemade historical variants" -concept

Post by Finland1944 »

Ok, now I see. My impression of 2.1 AARs has been that people say "this time I choose a strategy in which I TAKE UK". 3.0 is different.

++++++

Would it be possible to think a failed Sea Lion as a"historical variant"?

Hitler will continue the war for sure, he is a bad looser. But performance in Barbarossa won't be the perfect one.

How many months is this worth? How long Axis player must hold so that we can congratulate him? Is Dec 1944 a poor of excellent achievement after failed Sea Lion.

May 1945 in not objective truth. It just happened to go that way. If Patton were in charge of Market Garden...
Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Introducing a "homemade historical variants" -concept

Post by Cybvep »

Here is an idea for those who want to add some spice to the game - automatic Axis Decisive Victory. When the Axis player achieves a set of objectives, their wins the game, no matter whether it's 1942 or 1943 or whatever. Their simply wins. Period.

My proposal:
- the Axis controls Berlin and Hamburg
- the Axis controls Paris
- the Axis controls London
- the Axis controls Rome
- the Axis controls Suez
- Tunis is either neutral or Axis-controlled
- the Axis controls Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and Baku

Remember, when you achieve that, you win a Decisive Victory. You don't have to last until 1945. An interesting challenge IMO. Of course, if the Axis player fails to achieve these objectives, their can always try to win using the standard VCs, or at least reduce the scale of their defeat.
Post Reply

Return to “Commander Europe at War : AAR's”