All your eggs in one basket

[sapper32]

Hi all im involved in a PBEM game as the Axis upon taking the TO start operation Weseruebung i invaded Denmark and with my Airborne forces and a seaborne assault captured Oslo and landed at Kristiansand my opponent then blockaded the Denmark straight with the entire Royal Navy and French navy to cover this the entire RAF fighter command was moved to Norway which basicaly negated any Luftwaffe attacks on the allied naval units so the blockade continued my opponent moved British and French land units to Norway to contest the invasion my problem with this is 1. surely the Denmark straight was mined and german u boats would be presant so the Allied navies would not and did not operate there.
2. Deploying the entire RAF to Norway is fantasy?? I think the RAF deployed 1 squadron of obsolete Gloster Gladiator fighters which ran out of fuel and were withdrawn to England after one sortie as they could not be resupplied.

Also the battle for France is on my opponent took TO extend Maginot line which proved hard to breach anyway im through their now but im encountering British and Commonwealth units from the middle east and the Iraq/Persia command eg Army of the Nile 8th Inf Div 31st Indian Armd Div and maybe others im aware that thwere are no house rules covering these actions but i belive these actions are a bit gamey maybe there should be a house rule to prevent these units being used in Europe until certain conditions are met like with the French Colonial forces in North Africa what say you????

 

[Mark Stevens]

I would reply that Denmark and Norway aren't crucial to the European war: if the Allies have chosen to send the entire RAF and the bulk of the British mobile forces to the northern theatre it should make it considerably easier for the Axis to win in the Low Countries and France, which are far more important. Similarly, if intelligence reveals that they've shipped a lot of the Commonwealth Mediterranean forces to the Western Front, is now the time to bring in Italy ('early') and overrun North Africa, and maybe the strategic islands there?

I don't think that it would have been impossible for the Allies to withdraw units from the Mediterranean and Britain to shore up Norway and France, but if and when it fails and France falls there's a definite possibility of a quick 'Sealion' with every chance of success. This will open up wider possibilities, such as the USSR deciding that while Germany is committed in the West it could follow Zhukov's suggestion and launch an attack on Germany in the East. This in turn will trigger a stronger Axis defence there, with additional reinforcements and the early mobilisation of the Axis satellites in the Balkans. If that's a step too far outside the historical timeline for you , leave the UK alone and make a bigger push in the Mediterranean.

My view is that its your opponent who's put all his eggs in one basket and that he'll have to think about a Dunkirk on a massive scale as you approach Paris, at the same time as he needs his limited shipping capacity to retrieve his ground units from Norway in case you do go for Sealion. With any luck he'll lose a lot of his very limited Commonwealth mobile forces in France (obviously this is assuming the loss of Paris and a French surrender) and this will make it far easier for the Axis in the Mediterranean.

This has been a constant debate with this scenario: to what extent should players be constrained to follow the historical timeline? My own view is that it is (deliberately) a very big picture game, and that - if it's any good - should your opponent choose to take strategic options that are unhistorical it should open up alternatives for the other player that will have a counterbalancing effect.

It won't follow the strict timeline of WWII in Europe, but that's the point - the scenario's designed to offer both players very different options from what happened, without it descending into a fantasy game. if you're not comfortable with this approach, perhaps this isn't the scenario for you.

Be very interested to hear how this progresses.

 

[Veers]

I would reply that Denmark and Norway aren't crucial to the European war: if the Allies have chosen to send the entire RAF and the bulk of the British mobile forces to the northern theatre it should make it considerably easier for the Axis to win in the Low Countries and France, which are far more important. Similarly, if intelligence reveals that they've shipped a lot of the Commonwealth Mediterranean forces to the Western Front, is now the time to bring in Italy ('early') and overrun North Africa, and maybe the strategic islands there?

I don't think that it would have been impossible for the Allies to withdraw units from the Mediterranean and Britain to shore up Norway and France, but if and when it fails and France falls there's a definite possibility of a quick 'Sealion' with every chance of success. This will open up wider possibilities, such as the USSR deciding that while Germany is committed in the West it could follow Zhukov's suggestion and launch an attack on Germany in the East. This in turn will trigger a stronger Axis defence there, with additional reinforcements and the early mobilisation of the Axis satellites in the Balkans. If that's a step too far outside the historical timeline for you , leave the UK alone and make a bigger push in the Mediterranean.

My view is that its your opponent who's put all his eggs in one basket and that he'll have to think about a Dunkirk on a massive scale as you approach Paris, at the same time as he needs his limited shipping capacity to retrieve his ground units from Norway in case you do go for Sealion. With any luck he'll lose a lot of his very limited Commonwealth mobile forces in France (obviously this is assuming the loss of Paris and a French surrender) and this will make it far easier for the Axis in the Mediterranean.

This has been a constant debate with this scenario: to what extent should players be constrained to follow the historical timeline? My own view is that it is (deliberately) a very big picture game, and that - if it's any good - should your opponent choose to take strategic options that are unhistorical it should open up alternatives for the other player that will have a counterbalancing effect.

It won't follow the strict timeline of WWII in Europe, but that's the point - the scenario's designed to offer both players very different options from what happened, without it descending into a fantasy game. if you're not comfortable with this approach, perhaps this isn't the scenario for you.

Be very interested to hear how this progresses.

Yeah, pretty much second this.

 

[Heldenkaiser]

This has been a constant debate with this scenario: to what extent should players be constrained to follow the historical timeline? My own view is that it is (deliberately) a very big picture game, and that - if it's any good - should your opponent choose to take strategic options that are unhistorical it should open up alternatives for the other player that will have a counterbalancing effect.

It won't follow the strict timeline of WWII in Europe, but that's the point - the scenario's designed to offer both players very different options from what happened, without it descending into a fantasy game.

I am very happy with this approach, which is often sadly neglected or even actively opposed by game / scenario designers.

 

[sapper32]

I would think that having counted the RAF units in Norway being at least 8 units about 200 fighters in a units and about 150 bombers in a unit then thats probarbly about 1200 aircraft then surely this is fantasy i think so anyway.
As for the game were on turn 58 im 3 hexs from Paris my supposed 10 turn shock bonus lasted 7 turns(gerrmans continue the attack TO).There will be not to many attacks for a few turn as most of the German army is hardly capable of defence,The Italians are breaking through the Alps but are also now quite worn out,The Italians in NA have evaped a few french units and are fighting in Libiya against Br XIII Corps and some engineers
Im not saying i want to follow the timeline of WWII and it is interesting when events occur that didnt in the actual war it all adds to the replay value of this scenario in another game ive got going as Allies my opponent just brought Spain into the war unfortunatly for me a large number of the Admiral Darlan units are not appearing as they are in Garrisoned hex's and we are still fighting a bloody battle in Finland on turn 70 so may have to fight off an attack on the soviet union from the Arctic circle to the black sea

 

[Veers]

I am very happy with this approach, which is often sadly neglected or even actively opposed by game / scenario designers.

Werd.00

 

[Raver]

Well Ithink it probably is a bit weird to be able to have that many brits in Norway, but as Mark says, its a game. It has its weaknesses, but the effect is probably sensible as it opens up other options for you. If I were you I would keep going with air attacks on the RN. Rotate your fighters in and out of the airbases in Denmark, attack the closest ships only (make his fighters fly as far as possible, and use the stukas. Your aircraft are replacable - his ships arent so much.

The overcommittment of british troops in France sounds like a dream come true though - kill em!! That could be a whole lot of troops that wont be fighting you in north africa or on D-day. And as mark says, go balls out in north africa - taking the suez would more than make up for missing out on Norway.

My thoughts anyway. Always remember though, none of this matters in the end result - its all about russia.

 

[Veers]

Always remember though, none of this matters in the end result - its all about russia.

The early game only matters in so much as if the Allies you can incur as many casualties on the Axis as I'm currently inflicting on Mark, it'll take a big sting out of Barbarossa.