Europe at War 1945-1946

[piero1971]

I would like to start a scenario loosely inspired by GDW's WiF extention "Patton in Flames" to represent a clash in 1945-1946 (or longer) between the Western Allies and Soviet Union and its sattelites.

Before I go on OOB's etc. I would like to discuss some of the game philosophy with you fine gentlemen, as far as scale, etc.

I think the best scale for a conflict like that would be 10km per hex, but that is if one keeps only europe as a theater of war (and the rest by events). If one wants to add Asia, the scale has to be different. would asia/pacific even matter? Opinions? in all cases, what maps are available to save time.

A significant part of the belligerents in such a scenario would be the communist partisans all over europe as well as the nationalist forces (and remains of fascist regimes) that would be anti-communist. what groups shoudl fight? in which countries/regions? (and that is linked to maps, i.e. ukraine, baltics, etc.)

Nukes? opinions on their political and tactical effects and also power at the times of conflict.

---

or, alternatively, would a conflict in 1950-1951 be a more interesting idea? (but that one would have more nukes.. so perhaps less interesting)

 

[Dicke Bertha]

Piero, two unrealistic wishes from someone who don't know squat about design:

1) do a Normandy to Berlin scenario, 10 km/hex, regimental scale. Please, thanks, Once this little appetizer is done, get on to the real challenge

2) do a Normandy and Bagration to Berlin scenario, same scale. Make the Soviet player control the German west front units, and the Western Allied player control the German Ostfront units. Depending on how far the Soviets or the Westerners advance (some EEV) some no-cross line in Germany disappears, all Germans are demobilised, and Western Allies and Soviets turn on each other, very probably with many German units reappearing under western control. Wouldn't that be the monster of monsters?

3) If the monsters use up all events etc, then another variant would be to have cascaded scenarios where for example 1) generates input for a 2) that starts with players entering data. For example chosing set TO's for losses taken, ground gained during 1).

Would this be even remotely doable?

 

[Ben Turner]

2) do a Normandy and Bagration to Berlin scenario, same scale. Make the Soviet player control the German west front units, and the Western Allied player control the German Ostfront units.

How do you handle the way units moved back and forth between the two fronts? I really don't think this is a practical idea. It's been discussed before.

What I'd like to see done (and something that was first proposed more than four years ago back at the Matrix forum) is a scenario or scenarios based on the premise of a successful July plot leading to a Western/Soviet clash.

NOT at 10km/hex. Those games are not really playable.

 

[Dicke Bertha]

Well if it could be established how many German units historically were on either side (I know they were sent hin und her but...) a weighted balance could be set, for example a third of all Germans fighting in the west, the rest in the east. Static thus, otherwise the incentive for the players would be lost... Maybe it is not practical, but I find the idea interesting.

Why aren't 10 km/hex really playable?

 

[Ben Turner]

Well if it could be established how many German units historically were on either side (I know they were sent hin und her but...) a weighted balance could be set, for example a third of all Germans fighting in the west, the rest in the east. Static thus, otherwise the incentive for the players would be lost... Maybe it is not practical, but I find the idea interesting.

Really it's a project for a three player scenario, with an option to then convert it into a East vs. West scenario...

I see it working like this; Germany wins if she has x number of points at the end of the scenario. Then there's some line drawn in the middle of Germany, and at the end of the scenario whichever of the Allied players controls more urban hexes on the far side of the line comes first, the other second, and the Germans third.

However either Allied player can at any time conclude a negotiated peace with the Germans (if the Germans agree) to attack the other player. A bit of a stretch of history here but never mind. This involves the rather tortuous process of shifting the OOB about into a new scenario; the Wehrmacht joins whoever it made the negotiated peace with, the other Allied player's forces are shifted over to the other force, and the Waffen SS units are put on the opposite force to whichever side they were fighting before peace was concluded (and given low formation supply levels so that if they do get back to 'friendly' lines they won't be much use to them anyway).

Then whichever side wins that scenario comes first, the Germans come second, and the loser comes third.

This definitely would have to be a larger scale scenario- divisions at least- because this kind of process really requires the OOB dump/import feature which only works with smaller scenarios.

Why aren't 10 km/hex really playable?

I mean huge monster scenarios. I suppose in Central Europe 10km/hex might mean divisional scale, or you might be proposing to do a scenario covering a section of the front (which is probably better for a stand alone scenario). However whole-of-the-eastern-front scenarios at regiment scale really stretch the limits of what a human can manage competently. Most players will lose sight of any long term or strategic goals and just start shuffling units about mindlessly. I think that our multiplayer DNO project has demonstrated this well, incidentally; we're way ahead of historical schedule, and I doubt we would have been if any single one of the Axis commanders had been in charge of the whole front.

That's exactly what this sort of scenario really is good for- multiplayer projects. Anything else and they're just unmanageable.

 

[Amyrlin]

Piero,

The Fire in the East map, shifted a bit to the west, may be the best you can get.

I was considering how fun such a scenario would be - a test of Patton's boast in 1946 that Third Army could be in Moscow in three weeks (or was it months?). A true clash of titans that would be!

You'd have to make a decision as to how the scenario starts - is it a gradual breakdown in relations or a sudden conflict? If it is the latter, you'll have to account for the fact that most US combat air wings would be in the Pacific or at home, and the Soviets would have air superiority initially.

Who would be the attacker? I had assumed that it would be the Allies, but perhaps the Soviets would be the attacking force - in that case the FitE map certainly wouldn't work!

 

[piero1971]

Dicke bertha, the scenarions you talk about do exist (on 50km per hex) and indeed, one player plays the west and germans on the east and the other the western allies and germans of the west.

I look more for a a scenario that would start AFTER Berlin collapses. In truth, the more probable time for a real clash between the West and cOmmunists would have been in 1948, but why not end of 1945 if Stalin and Truman got into a strong disagreement over, say, Greece or Poland.

why 10km per hex? because I think that portraying the different units availabel in TOAW (artillery, engineers, etc. in different units, as well as making a tactical fight (infiltration, movement) realistic) when I see corps and armies fighting, I can't get the gist of TOAW that i really like - but that's just me of course)
by the way, anyone ever seen a 10Km/Hex map out there of europe?)

 

[piero1971]

Piero,

The Fire in the East map, shifted a bit to the west, may be the best you can get.

I was considering how fun such a scenario would be - a test of Patton's boast in 1946 that Third Army could be in Moscow in three weeks (or was it months?). A true clash of titans that would be!

You'd have to make a decision as to how the scenario starts - is it a gradual breakdown in relations or a sudden conflict? If it is the latter, you'll have to account for the fact that most US combat air wings would be in the Pacific or at home, and the Soviets would have air superiority initially.

Who would be the attacker? I had assumed that it would be the Allies, but perhaps the Soviets would be the attacking force - in that case the FitE map certainly wouldn't work!

It would be fun. That's why the cause and time for such a conflict would matter. with the size and numerous pro-soviet parties all over europe, a fight to Moscow by Patton/Monty, is, imho, unrealistic, but could only be tries after the 3 million or so mechanized soviets in germany are kicked out (before they reach paris and gibraltar, that is).

 

[JMS]

It would be fun. That's why the cause and time for such a conflict would matter. with the size and numerous pro-soviet parties all over europe, a fight to Moscow by Patton/Monty, is, imho, unrealistic, but could only be tries after the 3 million or so mechanized soviets in germany are kicked out (before they reach paris and gibraltar, that is).

This may be a coincidence but precisely this kind of scenario was being discussed at tank-net, with some useful numbers thrown in:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=9618

 

[Ben Turner]

You'd have to make a decision as to how the scenario starts - is it a gradual breakdown in relations or a sudden conflict? If it is the latter, you'll have to account for the fact that most US combat air wings would be in the Pacific or at home, and the Soviets would have air superiority initially.

I doubt it. The Red Air Force was barely able to wrestle air superiority from a dying Luftwaffe in 1945. I suppose it depends how long after the real war ended you're envisioning this happening.

 

[Ben Turner]

It would be fun. That's why the cause and time for such a conflict would matter. with the size and numerous pro-soviet parties all over europe, a fight to Moscow by Patton/Monty, is, imho, unrealistic, but could only be tries after the 3 million or so mechanized soviets in germany are kicked out (before they reach paris and gibraltar, that is).

In my view, a Western-Soviet clash in 1945 would likely end in military stalemate. The Soviets simply would not be able to make offensive progress against the huge material superiority of the Allies, whilst the the Allies were not prepared to fight the kind of war that would be necessary to defeat the Soviets, as it would probably cost rather more American lives than the war against Germany.

The atomic bomb is not a major factor, because so few were available. In any case, using the atom bomb against Soviet cities would probably be a major own goal for the Allies since it would underline the idea that once again the Russian people were fighting for survival rather than for Stalin's government.

A collapse of the home front in Russia would be the best chance the Allies would have for victory. Besides the long hardships of the Great Patriotic War and the unpopularity of Stalin's regime, the Soviet Union was at this time completely dependent on food imports from the United States, because of the devastation of the Ukraine and other agricultural areas.

 

[piero1971]

I think the whole point of the scenario is to find out what would have happened... and then, it means that the discussion has really to be on what are the factors to put in the scenario.

then, let the players find out if the red army can crush the western forces or the opposite.


so let's assume a clash in 1945. what could have sparked it?

- relations after Yalta, while tense were still good at the time, at least officially. and in the masses of liberated european people both east and west (the poles and czechs etc. still did not know htat they traded one occupier for another) were still entusisatic about both sides of the allies. Soviet Uniron, USA, britain hd great prestige.

 

[Ben Turner]

- relations after Yalta, while tense were still good at the time, at least officially. and in the masses of liberated european people both east and west (the poles and czechs etc. still did not know htat they traded one occupier for another) were still entusisatic about both sides of the allies. Soviet Uniron, USA, britain hd great prestige.

Well I think that in practice neither side wanted any more bloodshed after the experience of the Second World War.

Probably the best option is to say that Eisenhower agrees to let Ninth Army make the dash to Berlin (and, if you like, Third Army to Prague). Both sides, keen to get the city, order forces to push ahead as fast as possible. A number of major 'friendly fire' incidents occur which flare into open war. So we have the conflict breaking out right at the end of the war, probably late April 1945.

Anyway, the Soviets then have to do enough damage to bring the Allies back to the peace table before mass starvation causes their war effort to collapse. This also means that we don't have to worry about the atomic bomb because it might not be ready before the end of the scenario.

A lot of wierd stuff going on at this point. You've got the Wehrmacht still fighting both sides. Hitler hasn't yet committed suicide. Yugoslavia is disinclined to align itself with the Soviets but tensions are high with the West over the future of Trieste. The war with Japan is still going on of course... and so on.

 

[Dicke Bertha]

why 10km per hex? because I think that portraying the different units availabel in TOAW (artillery, engineers, etc. in different units, as well as making a tactical fight (infiltration, movement) realistic) when I see corps and armies fighting, I can't get the gist of TOAW that i really like - but that's just me of course)

Piero, I agree on playability; 10 km/hex is perfect for playing grand scenarios, the 50 km/hex ones aren't interesting for me

Ben, I don't think regimental scale (which means battalion to division really) would be to cumbersome. Personally I'd have no problem doing a 100 turn scenario twice or three times even the size of McBride's Götterdämmerung in Osten, and that without losing sight of strategy. Turn rate would slow down, but I'd play a turn per week no probs!

I think that a 1945 or 1946 clash between Soviets and Allies would see the Allies quickly remobilising the Wehrmacht, and probably inclusive of a lot of equipment, meaning quick availability of battle-efficient formations. Especially once the Soviets start kicking the US/UK butts.

The Soviets on the other hand would not be able to use Germans on their side, they would surrender to the Allies immediately.

 

[Dicke Bertha]

As for causes of ignition; what if the Soviets refused to hand over terrain as agreed at Yalta. For example Vienna/Austria (don't remember how long the actually stayed - two years? If so, let's say they advance down into Italy or restart hostilities in Finland or something).

 

[Dicke Bertha]

Dicke bertha, the scenarions you talk about do exist (on 50km per hex) and indeed, one player plays the west and germans on the east and the other the western allies and germans of the west.

Piero, could you point me to where I could find this? I'd like to take a look at it - the idea is swell.

 

[Martin Schenkel]

As for causes of ignition; what if the Soviets refused to hand over terrain as agreed at Yalta. For example Vienna/Austria (don't remember how long the actually stayed - two years? If so, let's say they advance down into Italy or restart hostilities in Finland or something).

Or even the western Allies refusing to hand over terrain. Historically, many units had to withdraw back to the agreed demarcation line.

 

[Ben Turner]

Piero, I agree on playability; 10 km/hex is perfect for playing grand scenarios, the 50 km/hex ones aren't interesting for me

Most 50km/hex scenarios involve considerable distortion. There are, however, intervening scales.

Ben, I don't think regimental scale (which means battalion to division really) would be to cumbersome. Personally I'd have no problem doing a 100 turn scenario twice or three times even the size of McBride's Götterdämmerung in Osten, and that without losing sight of strategy. Turn rate would slow down, but I'd play a turn per week no probs!

I remain unconvinced. See my comments about how far ahead of schedule we are in the multiplayer game- turn 27 and we're already on "marginal victory". Now look at the game reports from one-on-one games. Looks balanced, doesn't it?

More than that, who is the player in these monster scenarios? OKW is not going to be making decisions about which regiment goes where- at least not often. Divisions at this scale makes historical sense far more than regiments.

I think that a 1945 or 1946 clash between Soviets and Allies would see the Allies quickly remobilising the Wehrmacht,

Definitely. In fact there were plans made for this and captured weapons were stored in such a way as to allow easy redistribution. However I think that German units would be on a pretty tight leash, at least to begin with.

Especially once the Soviets start kicking the US/UK butts.

I really don't see this happening. Postwar studies rated German soldiers as being worth about 1.2 American soldiers- that's after things like airpower had been factored out of the equation. Russia's attacks are going to look like the Ardennes Offensive- not like Bagration.

 

[Ben Turner]

As for causes of ignition; what if the Soviets refused to hand over terrain as agreed at Yalta. For example Vienna/Austria (don't remember how long the actually stayed - two years?)

Much less than that as I recall. The Americans basically threatened to cut off their supply of spam at which point all one could see was a dust cloud and lots of Russian-shaped holes in doors.

 

[Ben Turner]

Or even the western Allies refusing to hand over terrain. Historically, many units had to withdraw back to the agreed demarcation line.

That strikes me as more likely- but would it really lead to a conflict? The difficulty is neither side wanted to fight. Hence my suggestion of major friendly fire incidents around Berlin. These could easily be whipped up by the media into atrocities which have to be avenged, particularly in less war-weary America.