It’s a game. If you wanted everything to be completely historical then there would be no point at all in playing it because the outcome can be found in any history book. The numbers were made the way they were so that the game would be somewhat even and therefore playable.
I can understand your fixation on making it more historically accurate, but try to have some fun playing it too. If not, well, don’t forget to vaporize the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because that’s how it ends if you’re being historically accurate.
It’s a game. If you wanted everything to be completely historical then there would be no point at all in playing it because the outcome can be found in any history book. The numbers were made the way they were so that the game would be somewhat even and therefore playable.
I can understand your fixation on making it more historically accurate, but try to have some fun playing it too. If not, well, don’t forget to vaporize the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because that’s how it ends if you’re being historically accurate.
I’m not advocating giving the US 300 IPCs. I was just converstating in addition to what taamvan said.
And in this game, I prefer to play Axis.
When people talk about WW2 they often talk about how, at the beginning, US had the 14th to 16th largest military in the world, while, at the end, US had produced more war material than the rest of the world combined. What people often miss is there were critical points in the war where things could have swung the outcome of the war in other ways in the 2.5 years it took USA to land troops in France.
Most people know that the German decision to attack Stalingrad instead of laying siege to it like Leningrad was a disastrous decision. Germany lost just one military casualty for every 6 military casualties the USSR suffered during the Leningrad siege. This is one reason why it lasted so long. This is also despite the fact the north was able to be supplied by Allied convoys. As there were no Allied convoys to Stalingrad, simply laying siege to it (even with a higher loss ratio of 1 to 3 or 4), as many German staff wanted, might have been enough to win the war, instead of attacking it and losing an entire army for nothing.
The main critical point in WW2 that many miss is that, at a certain time around mid 1942, USSR only had about 1000 armored vehicles and a few thousand planes left with which to fight Germany. This fact alone is not significant. But couple it with the fact that, at that very same point, USSR had received about 5000 armored vehicles and many thousands of planes from UK and USA, and a clear picture emerges. So, at this point and probably weeks to months earlier, USSR would have been out of WW2 because they would not have any heavy weapons to fight with. All the territory they gained or held with lend lease weapons would have gone to Germany with low losses. If US/UK had not done lend lease or had done it at a lower level, USSR was out.
There are literally dozens of close critical moments that could have swung the war one way or the other if things had been slightly different. A few are the almost complete lack of military production by Germany’s European allies, the decision of Finland to not help Germany take Leningrad when the opportunity was there early, the battle of Midway which should never have happened, the German tendency to split their attack power among smaller armies in 1942 and beyond instead of concentrating their force against USSR for an almost guaranteed big win, etc… This game simulates the fact that WW2 wasn’t over as soon as USA joined since it took 2.5 years for USA to build up and land troops in France.
The Battle of Midway shouldn’t have happened because Japan should have stuck to their original plan to adopt a defensive posture or because they should have guessed that USA might have cracked their codes? I can only really go along with the former idea.
I can’t really ever recall hearing about Finns not helping with the Leningrad siege. My understanding is that they did help.
Can’t recall hearing about the Stalingrad siege idea either. How would they stop supplies getting across the Volga River? Some recoilless rifles on the river bank I’m guessing but wouldn’t the Soviet artillery take them out? Constant air patrol seems the only real way and that didn’t stop reinforcements coming in.
The main critical point in WW2 that many miss is that, at a certain time around mid 1942, USSR only had about 1000 armored vehicles and a few thousand planes left with which to fight Germany. This fact alone is not significant. But couple it with the fact that, at that very same point, USSR had received about 5000 armored vehicles and many thousands of planes from UK and USA, and a clear picture emerges. So, at this point and probably weeks to months earlier, USSR would have been out of WW2 because they would not have any heavy weapons to fight with. All the territory they gained or held with lend lease weapons would have gone to Germany with low losses. If US/UK had not done lend lease or had done it at a lower level, USSR was out.
Do you have a source for this? In any case, the Russians produced about 24000 tanks in 1942, or an average of 2000 per month. They were not in danger of running out of tanks.
When people talk about WW2 they often talk about how, at the beginning, US had the 14th to 16th largest military in the world, while, at the end, US had produced more war material than the rest of the world combined. What people often miss is there were critical points in the war where things could have swung the outcome of the war in other ways in the 2.5 years it took USA to land troops in France.
Most people know that the German decision to attack Stalingrad instead of laying siege to it like Leningrad was a disastrous decision. Germany lost just one military casualty for every 6 military casualties the USSR suffered during the Leningrad siege. This is one reason why it lasted so long. This is also despite the fact the north was able to be supplied by Allied convoys. As there were no Allied convoys to Stalingrad, simply laying siege to it (even with a higher loss ratio of 1 to 3 or 4), as many German staff wanted, might have been enough to win the war, instead of attacking it and losing an entire army for nothing.
The main critical point in WW2 that many miss is that, at a certain time around mid 1942, USSR only had about 1000 armored vehicles and a few thousand planes left with which to fight Germany. This fact alone is not significant. But couple it with the fact that, at that very same point, USSR had received about 5000 armored vehicles and many thousands of planes from UK and USA, and a clear picture emerges. So, at this point and probably weeks to months earlier, USSR would have been out of WW2 because they would not have any heavy weapons to fight with. All the territory they gained or held with lend lease weapons would have gone to Germany with low losses. If US/UK had not done lend lease or had done it at a lower level, USSR was out.
There are literally dozens of close critical moments that could have swung the war one way or the other if things had been slightly different. A few are the almost complete lack of military production by Germany’s European allies, the decision of Finland to not help Germany take Leningrad when the opportunity was there early, the battle of Midway which should never have happened, the German tendency to split their attack power among smaller armies in 1942 and beyond instead of concentrating their force against USSR for an almost guaranteed big win, etc… This game simulates the fact that WW2 wasn’t over as soon as USA joined since it took 2.5 years for USA to build up and land troops in France.
Except your failed to understand the position in which US was in. In the Pacific, the US would tell the Allies when and where you attack because the bulk the allied navies wanted to be attached to the USN and the US was free to conquer Japanese islands. The same can’t be said in Europe. US wanted to go into France ASAP after Operation Torch. However UK on the other hand didn’t and arguments came between the Commonwealth and US on where to land. Some wanted Greece, others wanted to reinforce USSR in the south. Some even wanted to go right for Germany. Thus the middle zone was chosen and they decided for Italy and the US agreed in frustration.
@Caesar:
Except I maintained to this day a US invasion in Europe or Africa is not needed when USSR and UK can do it themselves. It would take A LOT for me to commit a liberation force in these areas when I’d rather do it against Japan where it’s more needed. You can simply bomb German factories into submission and then take a fleet and starve Italy in the Med. USSR and UK should be able to do the rest. Japan however is a different beast and requires an actual invasion to stop. Something that USSR and UK can’t really do due to there unrealistic weakness that the creators put on them in the east and thus require US to do eventually invade the island or liberate other allied territories and since I have yet to see a single Japanese player who actually goes for every single island like Japan did in the war because why would waste the resources going for islands that doesn’t have value and doesn’t have NO on top of it.
You can’t bomb Berlin into submission without boots on the ground somewhere in Europe. You aren’t seriously going to tell me USSR will hold Finland without allied support?
W Germany, with support from carrier based escorts it is possible but not so useful without hitting Berlin too.
The main critical point in WW2 that many miss is that, at a certain time around mid 1942, USSR only had about 1000 armored vehicles and a few thousand planes left with which to fight Germany.� This fact alone is not significant.� But couple it with the fact that, at that very same point, USSR had received about 5000 armored vehicles and many thousands of planes from UK and USA, and a clear picture emerges.� So, at this point and probably weeks to months earlier, USSR would have been out of WW2 because they would not have any heavy weapons to fight with.� All the territory they gained or held with lend lease weapons would have gone to Germany with low losses.� If US/UK had not done lend lease or had done it at a lower level, USSR was out.
Do you have a source for this? In any case, the Russians produced about 24000 tanks in 1942, or an average of 2000 per month. They were not in danger of running out of tanks.
The second chart shows they were down to 6k total at one point. �However this is over the period of several months and doesn’t show the absolute minimum or subtract out the Far East tanks. �So, from link 1, USSR received about 6k armored vehicles through end of 1942. �So, even though 6k is not the minimum, if you use the 6k total and subtract out the 6k received by lend lease through end of 1942, USSR had zero net armored vehicles. �Now, subtract out the far east tanks to deter Japan from attacking and USSR had negative tanks on Eastern front to fight Germany. �So, the USSR would have been out of the war or would have been pushed back 500+ miles due to lack of armor to resist the German blitzkrieg.
I can’t find the reference to the book chapter which did the analysis to find the minimum USSR tank strength to prove they would have been knocked out of the war without lend lease tanks and planes in 1942. But, this is close enough. I’ll look for that as I have time.
Not letting me post links.
Search the terms below. This will bring up plenty of articles
ussr tank losses 1942
historynet . com lend lease USSR
@Caesar:
Except I maintained to this day a US invasion in Europe or Africa is not needed when USSR and UK can do it themselves. It would take A LOT for me to commit a liberation force in these areas when I’d rather do it against Japan where it’s more needed. You can simply bomb German factories into submission and then take a fleet and starve Italy in the Med. USSR and UK should be able to do the rest. Japan however is a different beast and requires an actual invasion to stop. Something that USSR and UK can’t really do due to there unrealistic weakness that the creators put on them in the east and thus require US to do eventually invade the island or liberate other allied territories and since I have yet to see a single Japanese player who actually goes for every single island like Japan did in the war because why would waste the resources going for islands that doesn’t have value and doesn’t have NO on top of it.
You can’t bomb Berlin into submission without boots on the ground somewhere in Europe. You aren’t seriously going to tell me USSR will hold Finland without allied support?
W Germany, with support from carrier based escorts it is possible but not so useful without hitting Berlin too.
BS I can’t, I can bomb from London and hit West Germany and all three French factories. You then can move bombers around friendly Europe to hit Germany and both Italian home territories as needed.
Hi great discussion.
I think since playing my first game in 1985 we have all be craving more realism and G40 is so much better than anything that has gone before.
There are obvious problems than any board game will always have.
1. Complete information.
Espionage, code braking, secrecy were all massive in WW2, but in the game al players can see exactly where everything is.
2. Technology
The tech system has never really works to represent the massive jump between a pz1 and pz 6b or wellington to b29.
3. Scale.
Some aspects of movement and scale are really weird. Like short range interceptors taking off from london sinking a battleship in the adriatic sea and landing on an aircraft carrier.
4. Logistics
What happens when supply lines are cut and troops are surrounded?
My goal is just unit set up. For example, USSR having a Pacific Fleet. I might some day try to do units attack have different A/D for example, a Type 95 isn’t going to have the same attack as a M4 Sherman.
@Caesar:
@Caesar:
Except I maintained to this day a US invasion in Europe or Africa is not needed when USSR and UK can do it themselves. It would take A LOT for me to commit a liberation force in these areas when I’d rather do it against Japan where it’s more needed. You can simply bomb German factories into submission and then take a fleet and starve Italy in the Med. USSR and UK should be able to do the rest. Japan however is a different beast and requires an actual invasion to stop. Something that USSR and UK can’t really do due to there unrealistic weakness that the creators put on them in the east and thus require US to do eventually invade the island or liberate other allied territories and since I have yet to see a single Japanese player who actually goes for every single island like Japan did in the war because why would waste the resources going for islands that doesn’t have value and doesn’t have NO on top of it.
You can’t bomb Berlin into submission without boots on the ground somewhere in Europe. You aren’t seriously going to tell me USSR will hold Finland without allied support?
W Germany, with support from carrier based escorts it is possible but not so useful without hitting Berlin too.
BS I can’t, I can bomb from London and hit West Germany and all three French factories. You then can move bombers around friendly Europe to hit Germany and both Italian home territories as needed.
W Germany is not Berlin. Friendly Europe without boots on the ground eh?
@Caesar:
@Caesar:
Except I maintained to this day a US invasion in Europe or Africa is not needed when USSR and UK can do it themselves. It would take A LOT for me to commit a liberation force in these areas when I’d rather do it against Japan where it’s more needed. You can simply bomb German factories into submission and then take a fleet and starve Italy in the Med. USSR and UK should be able to do the rest. Japan however is a different beast and requires an actual invasion to stop. Something that USSR and UK can’t really do due to there unrealistic weakness that the creators put on them in the east and thus require US to do eventually invade the island or liberate other allied territories and since I have yet to see a single Japanese player who actually goes for every single island like Japan did in the war because why would waste the resources going for islands that doesn’t have value and doesn’t have NO on top of it.
You can’t bomb Berlin into submission without boots on the ground somewhere in Europe. You aren’t seriously going to tell me USSR will hold Finland without allied support?
W Germany, with support from carrier based escorts it is possible but not so useful without hitting Berlin too.
BS I can’t, I can bomb from London and hit West Germany and all three French factories. You then can move bombers around friendly Europe to hit Germany and both Italian home territories as needed.
W Germany is not Berlin. Friendly Europe without boots on the ground eh?
Berlin isn’t an issue. If I force Germany to produce nothing beyond ten units and that assumes they don’t repair any factories I bomb, I already gave great advantage for USSR and even more so for UK.
@Caesar:
Berlin isn’t an issue. If I force Germany to produce nothing beyond ten units and that assumes they don’t repair any factories I bomb, I already gave great advantage for USSR and even more so for UK.
Sigh.
Was something unclear about what I was saying originally?
@simon33:
You can’t bomb Berlin into submission without boots on the ground somewhere in Europe. You aren’t seriously going to tell me USSR will hold Finland without allied support?
W Germany, with support from carrier based escorts it is possible but not so useful without hitting Berlin too.
Now you are saying that you don’t need to hit Berlin. Why talk around the point for so long rather than just saying that you don’t agree.
Anyway, if you can’t hit Berlin, Germany can fill up W Germany with interceptors so that it becomes almost impossible to hit it. The only way to really threaten Germany is to be able to hit both major factories.
Fighters defend at 1 on scrambles, USA will always out build Germany. I am not worried about losing bombers against Germany as a US place seeing as I can get all my bombers from DC to London in one move.
Second, you seem to not understand that knocking three minors and one major is a crippling blow to German work production. Guess what, German builds fighters to try to stop my bombers. This leaves USSR and UK free to operate more freely. What are you not seeing about this? The only down side is that UK will end up capturing factories I just bombed.
(added on if you read before this was added)
I forgot that bombers from London can hit Berlin, they just have to land on any USSR captured or liberated in the east. Unlikely in early games but doable. I try to have USSR to capture Finland or Norway not only for Spread of Communism but to allow US or UK bombers to bounce of Berlin if need be.
Have you ever had any success with such a strategy?
I’ve tried it and I didn’t like it much. What happens is Germany just uses its 3 minors in USSR and doesn’t repair every turn. In a normal Barbarossa, you don’t even build in W Germany and France after turns 2-4 except for defensive units.
Even if Scandinavia is in Allied hands, all Germany needs to do is not repair damage every turn and you deny it a target.
This plan doesn’t ignore Japan, that’s a compete foolish move in my opinion. I just build bombers enough to keep Germany annoyed while maintaining a Pacific Fleet. As I said before, I build a 1:1 build against Japan and make sure Hawaii doesn’t get captured.
