HoI2: Is it just me, or is this getting old?

[hermann]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Ever since the release of 'Svea Rike III' 5-6 years ago (re-released last
year under the name 'Europa Universalis: Crown of the North'), we've seen
various iterations of Paradox's successful RTS grand strategy concept.

While HoI2 is a fine game (compared to the other Paradox releases it's
virtually flawless post-patched), I can't seem to muster the same energy as
when EU2 first came out. To use a popular idiom: "Been there, done that."

I'm frustrated by the lack of innovation. Like EU2, HoI2 is basicly just a
huge patch of its predecessor. Slicker, better, but still the same game,
which - arguably - never really was a particularly good single-player game.

Some gripes:

* The AI _still_ doesn't put up much of a challenge, the buildup phase is
awfully boring, and the warfare leaves a lot to be desired. Granted, higher
difficulty settings try to rectify this by dumping IC output, but the effect
is negligable for nations which are already short on resources (ie, the
Axis).

* The US, USSR and France are faced with a long waiting, 4-5 years of
building up, and the outcome of the buildup face is decided in less than 12
months: you either win or lose, either ending the game.

* The AI seem to use hard-coded grand strategy considerations. Germany will
inevitable attack France around June 1940 and the USSR in May 1941. The UK
will sit sight in SE Asia, allowing Japan to gobble up their empire, while
waiting for the US onslaught. You could leave France completely empty, and
the UK still won't lauch an invasion prior to some magic date. This might
not seem like much of problem, but limits the choice of alternative
strategies.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Thanks for the insights; I'm honestly glad I have WitP...seriously
Looks like I won't be needed for anything else for this scale for a long time.

Peter

"Hermann" <hr_hesse@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:OY9Hd.127938$dP1.459471@newsc.telia.net...
> Ever since the release of 'Svea Rike III' 5-6 years ago (re-released last
> year under the name 'Europa Universalis: Crown of the North'), we've seen
> various iterations of Paradox's successful RTS grand strategy concept.
>
> While HoI2 is a fine game (compared to the other Paradox releases it's
> virtually flawless post-patched), I can't seem to muster the same energy as
> when EU2 first came out. To use a popular idiom: "Been there, done that."
>
> I'm frustrated by the lack of innovation. Like EU2, HoI2 is basicly just a
> huge patch of its predecessor. Slicker, better, but still the same game,
> which - arguably - never really was a particularly good single-player game.
>
> Some gripes:
>
> * The AI _still_ doesn't put up much of a challenge, the buildup phase is
> awfully boring, and the warfare leaves a lot to be desired. Granted, higher
> difficulty settings try to rectify this by dumping IC output, but the effect
> is negligable for nations which are already short on resources (ie, the
> Axis).
>
> * The US, USSR and France are faced with a long waiting, 4-5 years of
> building up, and the outcome of the buildup face is decided in less than 12
> months: you either win or lose, either ending the game.
>
> * The AI seem to use hard-coded grand strategy considerations. Germany will
> inevitable attack France around June 1940 and the USSR in May 1941. The UK
> will sit sight in SE Asia, allowing Japan to gobble up their empire, while
> waiting for the US onslaught. You could leave France completely empty, and
> the UK still won't lauch an invasion prior to some magic date. This might
> not seem like much of problem, but limits the choice of alternative
> strategies.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <OY9Hd.127938$dP1.459471@newsc.telia.net>, "Hermann"
<hr_hesse@yahoo.com> wrote:


>* The US, USSR and France are faced with a long waiting, 4-5 years of
>building up, and the outcome of the buildup face is decided in less than 12
>months: you either win or lose, either ending the game.
>
You can start the game in 1939 and get ito the war immediately. there are
also other scenarios such as the Argentine-Chile war.

>* The AI seem to use hard-coded grand strategy considerations. Germany will
>inevitable attack France around June 1940 and the USSR in May 1941. The UK
>will sit sight in SE Asia, allowing Japan to gobble up their empire, while
>waiting for the US onslaught. You could leave France completely empty, and
>the UK still won't lauch an invasion prior to some magic date. This might
>not seem like much of problem, but limits the choice of alternative
>strategies.

when I as Germany attacked Poland in may 1939 without the Soviet-German
pact, Russia and France immediately attacked Germany.

henri

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Game I'm playing now I've encounter a bit of both - i.e. scripted and non
scripted surprises...

- I took the traditional path for Germany and have France, Norway, Poland,
etc... plus the traditional German Minor allies...
- through diplomacy I'd kept Russia at +200 (I wouldn't even let it stay at
199) and was just getting ready to perform my own Operation Sea Lion when
Russia declared war on me in late 1942... this appeared very scripted to
me...
- on the surprise front, soon after I started pushing Russia back the US
proposed an alliance with me (which I accepted) and quickly annexed
Canada... my relation with the USA was around 0 at the time...

Now if the USA AI would just do something to Russia I might be able to
survive...


"Henri Arsenault" <arseno@nospamforme.ulaval.ca> wrote in message
news:arseno-1801051336200001@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca...
> In article <OY9Hd.127938$dP1.459471@newsc.telia.net>, "Hermann"
> <hr_hesse@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>* The US, USSR and France are faced with a long waiting, 4-5 years of
>>building up, and the outcome of the buildup face is decided in less than
>>12
>>months: you either win or lose, either ending the game.
>>
> You can start the game in 1939 and get ito the war immediately. there are
> also other scenarios such as the Argentine-Chile war.
>
>>* The AI seem to use hard-coded grand strategy considerations. Germany
>>will
>>inevitable attack France around June 1940 and the USSR in May 1941. The UK
>>will sit sight in SE Asia, allowing Japan to gobble up their empire, while
>>waiting for the US onslaught. You could leave France completely empty, and
>>the UK still won't lauch an invasion prior to some magic date. This might
>>not seem like much of problem, but limits the choice of alternative
>>strategies.
>
> when I as Germany attacked Poland in may 1939 without the Soviet-German
> pact, Russia and France immediately attacked Germany.
>
> henri

 

[hermann]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> when I as Germany attacked Poland in may 1939 without the
> Soviet-German pact, Russia and France immediately attacked
> Germany.

I don't know if you meant this to be a good thing.

Guarantees of independence, in combination with belligerence and the level
of aggressiveness can produce very random results and alliances, some
fitting and some not. I recently saw a between Italy on one side and Germany
and the allies on the other, when Italy launched a war against socialist
Yugoslavia in 1939.

My statement, however, was the result of a situation similar to yours:

Poland backed down, handed over Danzig and later the rest of the corridor.
Inspired by this unusual event, I wanted to try a premature assault on
Russia, assisting Finland.

However, in October 1939, the allies declared war and stormed through my
scarcely defended western border. If I remember my WW2 lore correctly,
France and England would've been delighted at the German crusade against
Bolsjevism.

This leads me to the conclusion that, as Germany, you _have_ to take on
France.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> when I as Germany attacked Poland in may 1939 without the
> Soviet-German pact, Russia and France immediately attacked Germany.

Exactly his point. You have to wait for a hard-coded event for any sort of
agreement with the USSR.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> - through diplomacy I'd kept Russia at +200 (I wouldn't even let it stay
at
> 199) and was just getting ready to perform my own Operation Sea Lion when
> Russia declared war on me in late 1942... this appeared very scripted to
> me...

Or it was very good maskirovka )

> - on the surprise front, soon after I started pushing Russia back the US
> proposed an alliance with me (which I accepted) and quickly annexed
> Canada... my relation with the USA was around 0 at the time...

This, IIRC, could be Joseph Kennedy...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <wJnHd.127995$dP1.459667@newsc.telia.net>, "Hermann"
<hr_hesse@yahoo.com> wrote:


>This is true, but as I said, there was no war with Poland. Do you really
>think that Chamberlain would've gone to war with Germany over Russia,
>though?

No, and Stalin didn't think so either...

Henri

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <Xns95E2DA0A3ED77Yarblookie@216.196.97.136>, "Bryan J. Maloney"
<cavaggione@comcast.ten> wrote:


>That was part of a long set of events. There was a specific guarantee
>for Poland made by France and the UK. NO SUCH GUARANTEE AT ALL was
>extended to the USSR. Chamberlain would have sat on his hands had
>Germany attacked the USSR without attacking Poland. There was no public
>sympathy in the UK nor in France for the USSR. Poland, on the other
>hand, had a great deal more public sympathy in the Western democracies.
>
How would Germany attack Russia without gong through Poland?

Henri

 

[hermann]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> How would Germany attack Russia without gong through Poland?

Through Eastern Prussia, which shares a border with Russia once Latvia is
occupied.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <yPvHd.128037$dP1.459681@newsc.telia.net>, hr_hesse@yahoo.com
says...

> > How would Germany attack Russia without gong through Poland?
>
> Through Eastern Prussia, which shares a border with Russia once Latvia is
> occupied.

That's a pretty slender straw to be drawing all one's oxygen through.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Once upon a time the major media at least pretended that the
heart & soul of the country was a porch in Kansas with an
American flag. Now it's the outlands, the Strange Beyond.
They vote for Bush, they believe in God, they'd have to
drive 2 hours for decent Thai. Who are these people?"
- James Lileks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> How would Germany attack Russia without gong through Poland?
>
> Henri

Maybe Romania.
--
Epi

I've started researching the "Bible Code."
I'm trying to discover the contents of my
upcoming birthday presents.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:30:54 GMT, "Hermann" <hr_hesse@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>* The US, USSR and France are faced with a long waiting, 4-5 years of
>building up, and the outcome of the buildup face is decided in less than 12
>months: you either win or lose, either ending the game.

For those who don't like the buildup, don't start in 1936. There
are 1939 and 1941 scenarios for a reason.

>* The AI seem to use hard-coded grand strategy considerations. Germany will
>inevitable attack France around June 1940 and the USSR in May 1941. The UK
>will sit sight in SE Asia, allowing Japan to gobble up their empire, while
>waiting for the US onslaught. You could leave France completely empty, and
>the UK still won't lauch an invasion prior to some magic date. This might
>not seem like much of problem, but limits the choice of alternative
>strategies.

A non hard-coded AI might decide to go the whole 12 years without
deciding that it's chances for attack against the allies are good. If
they did this, then people are in here bitching about a Wargame that
plays for 12 years and doesn't even have a war in it.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

 

[hermann]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> That's a pretty slender straw to be drawing all one's oxygen through.

It would be, if the AI grasped the concept of frontlines, encirclement and
cutting lines of supply. I wouldn't try it against a human opponent, though.

 

[hermann]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> For those who don't like the buildup, don't start in 1936. There
> are 1939 and 1941 scenarios for a reason.

A most valid point.

These scenarios are indeed useful, especially in multiplayer. However, a
hangup of mine (and several others, I'd wager) is that if I have the choice
between (a) starting at "beginning", configuring my army, research and
industry the way I like it, and (b) take over someone else's hand, I always
go for choice (a).

Since HoI 1, I have the habit of saving the game before the war breaks out,
and later returning to the same savegame as the same country if I want to
try different strategies, so it's not that big a deal.

Furthermore, the point about avoiding long buildups only holds true for the
US, and arguably for the USSR as well, but not for France, which rarely has
a chance unless you make some radical choices in 1936.

I still haven't seen anything which even remotely resembles the 4 years of
conflict on the eastern front - usually the AI frontline collapses very
quickly, and you spend another few months mopping up, but the outcome of
e.g. the eastern front is always decided at most 3 months into a conflict.

The very narrow NA front, however, can be both challenging and lengthy,
swinging to and fro, and it's a shame the longer frontlines don't share this
quality, mainly because the AI is incapable of maintaining long frontlines
or put up second lines of defence.

> A non hard-coded AI might decide to go the whole 12 years without
> deciding that it's chances for attack against the allies are good. If
> they did this, then people are in here bitching about a Wargame that
> plays for 12 years and doesn't even have a war in it.

Isn't this basicly defending a poor AI with "well, it could've been even
worse"?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Hermann" <hr_hesse@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:O7zHd.128059$dP1.459816@newsc.telia.net:

>> A non hard-coded AI might decide to go the whole 12 years without
>> deciding that it's chances for attack against the allies are good.
>> If they did this, then people are in here bitching about a Wargame
>> that plays for 12 years and doesn't even have a war in it.
>
> Isn't this basicly defending a poor AI with "well, it could've been
> even worse"?

It has nothing to do with the quality of the AI. Let's say for instance
you begin as Germany in 1936 and through a herculean effort manage to
build your forces to twice their historical size and what's more, you
develop the king tiger and the me-262, all by 1939.

If you were historical Russia in this scenario, would you declare war on
Germany? I wouldn't. I would sit that one out given the chance.

The point is that sooner or later the AI has to attack. If the time of
attack is not scripted, and the AI judges it chances for success at
certain intervals, it may never feel that the time is right. If you let a
powerful foe grow, they will become more powerful and your chances of
success go down even more. Something has to happen.

Besides, declarations of war are rarely based on "what can I get away
with". There are usually internal or external pressures on the populace,
or other political forces outside the scope of the game affecting
decisions.

--
The Soliphist asks...
What assertion do you make to validate your existence?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:01:19 GMT, Epi Watkins <epicat1212@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> How would Germany attack Russia without gong through Poland?
>>
>> Henri
>
>Maybe Romania.
>--
Romania had the same grarantee from the Soviets as Poland. Why would
the soviets have tolerated a German invasion of Romania but be ready
to go to war over Poland?

Henri

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:09:18 GMT, "Hermann" <hr_hesse@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>
>The very narrow NA front, however, can be both challenging and lengthy,
>swinging to and fro, and it's a shame the longer frontlines don't share this
>quality, mainly because the AI is incapable of maintaining long frontlines
>or put up second lines of defence.
>
Try attacking Poland in 1939 before the German-Soviet Pact when the
Stalin purges did not take place when the USSR declares war on Germany
and both France and the soviets invade Germany.

In my game, although I did manage to take a few provinces from the
soviets, I was totally incapable of making a single hole in the soviet
line that extended from Lituania to Romania just inside the Polish
border, and therefore unable to carry out any encirclements.

By March 1940 the Germans are being invaded across the Maginot line by
the French, in northern Germany by the British, and the solid Soviet
line is two-deep with mile-high stacks. I don't believe the Germans
have any chance at all of surviving. I would be interestd in someone
trying out this scenario with the Germans and seeing if a better
player than me can win (this was my first game aso I made some
mistakes, but I doubt whetehr it would have made a significant
difference).

The basic question is whether in 1939 the Germans could have survived
a joint Allied-Soviet invasion of Germany when they attacked Poland.

BTW, I find it interesting that some people are complaining both that
the game is too historical and that it is ahistorical...

Henri

 

[hermann]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> It has nothing to do with the quality of the AI. Let's say for instance
> you begin as Germany in 1936 and through a herculean effort manage to
> build your forces to twice their historical size and what's more, you
> develop the king tiger and the me-262, all by 1939.
>
> If you were historical Russia in this scenario, would you declare war on
> Germany? I wouldn't. I would sit that one out given the chance.
>
> The point is that sooner or later the AI has to attack. If the time of
> attack is not scripted, and the AI judges it chances for success at
> certain intervals, it may never feel that the time is right.

How is it supposed to "feel" it, given that it doesn't (or shouldn't) have
access to the information necessary for that decision?

Unless the AI cheats (which I find hard to believe, given Paradox's - or
rather the lead progammer's - policy on AI cheating) the AI won't have any
more clues about your industrial output, army size, tech level, units under
fog of war, etc, than you have about theirs, and should not be accounted for
in that evaluation.

Granted, I never fiddled much with military intelligence or decryption or
radar techs, so I could be wrong about the amount of information you have
available.

> If you let a
> powerful foe grow, they will become more powerful and your chances of
> success go down even more. Something has to happen.

Which is fine, but my point is that the AI take _that_ into consideration
instead.

> Besides, declarations of war are rarely based on "what can I get away
> with". There are usually internal or external pressures on the populace,
> or other political forces outside the scope of the game affecting
> decisions.

None of which are reflected much in the game.

 

[hermann]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> Try attacking Poland in 1939 before the German-Soviet Pact when the
> Stalin purges did not take place when the USSR declares war on Germany
> and both France and the soviets invade Germany.

Perhaps I explained somewhat fuzzily, but this doesn't address my point.
When the AI is on the offence, and you are on the defence, it handles
frontlines well enough. In the 1944 scenario, the allied AI behaves as I
would expect.

However, it's amazing how quickly the AI front lines evaporate once you
achieve a breakthrough or two. It seems to be incapable of strategical
retreats, and erecting a new frontline. Once you're through, the frontline
evaporates into scattered units moving without coordination.

> the French, in northern Germany by the British, and the solid Soviet
> line is two-deep with mile-high stacks. I don't believe the Germans

Two-deep? Huh. I trust you, but I've never seen this for myself.

> have any chance at all of surviving. I would be interestd in someone
> trying out this scenario with the Germans and seeing if a better
> player than me can win (this was my first game aso I made some
> mistakes, but I doubt whetehr it would have made a significant
> difference).

The scenario being a game on normal (I assume) difficulty and normal (again,
I assume) aggressiveness, where Germany attacks Poland somewhere between the
Anglo-Polish pact (April 1939?) and Russo-German pact (August 1939)?

Or, put more simply: Germany declines the Molotov-Ribbentrop proposal?

I'll try that out.

> The basic question is whether in 1939 the Germans could have survived
> a joint Allied-Soviet invasion of Germany when they attacked Poland.

Historically, I'd say it's doubtful that the Germans could have survived a
French invasion of Germany when they attacked Poland.

> BTW, I find it interesting that some people are complaining both that
> the game is too historical and that it is ahistorical...

It _can_ be both, though. The grand strategy can be locked to the same path
historically taken (which I argue it is), while still allowing absurdities
(which, thankfully, are quite scarce compared to HoI 1).

Next time I'll play some backwards country and attack another nation whose
independence is guaranteed by all three alliance blocks, just to see how it
plays out. I suspect, however, that it'll upset the scripting, causing a
12-year-stand off.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <WWBHd.14753$d5.123419@newsb.telia.net>, "Hermann"
<hr_hesse@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
>The scenario being a game on normal (I assume) difficulty and normal (again,
>I assume) aggressiveness, where Germany attacks Poland somewhere between the
>Anglo-Polish pact (April 1939?) and Russo-German pact (August 1939)?
>
>Or, put more simply: Germany declines the Molotov-Ribbentrop proposal?
>
Attack Poland in may, before the Germwn-soviet pact which took place in Qugust.

>I'll try that out.
>
let us know how you make out.

Of course there is a probability (I don,t know how much) that The Stalin
purges WILL take place in 1937, and that either France or the USSR will
NOT declare war when you attack Poland, so you may have to reload a few
times before you get all the conditions that happened to me. Although the
French invaded immediately in my case, the Russians waited a while until I
wiped out Poland and began to move most of my army back West to deal with
the French. They then moved into Poland and attacked me.

Henri

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <yPvHd.128037$dP1.459681@newsc.telia.net>, "Hermann"
<hr_hesse@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> How would Germany attack Russia without gong through Poland?
>
>Through Eastern Prussia, which shares a border with Russia once Latvia is
>occupied.

I don't have the game here, but if I remember from the game, all of the
Baltic states had a protection pact from the USSR, so attacking anyone of
them would have been equivalent to attacking Poland from the soviet point
of view.

In sum, the Germans had no entry route into the USSR except for the sea,
which was not feasible in 1939, given that they were at war with the
British and the French, and that the German navy could not carry the
required number of troops, not to mention other obvious difficulties with
a sea invasion of Russia.

Henri

 

[hermann]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> I don't have the game here, but if I remember from the game, all of the
> Baltic states had a protection pact from the USSR, so attacking anyone
> of them would have been equivalent to attacking Poland from the soviet
> point of view.

I meant occupied by Russia.

Poland backed down _after_ the Russo-German pact was in effect, so the
Baltic States were considered Russian national provinces, and were occupied
by diplomacy.

> In sum, the Germans had no entry route into the USSR except for the sea,
> which was not feasible in 1939, given that they were at war with the
> British and the French, and that the German navy could not carry the
> required number of troops, not to mention other obvious difficulties
> with a sea invasion of Russia.

Well, it is possible that such an invasion could've been lauched through
Finland in combination with seaborne landings in the Baltic States, given
that Russia hadn't occupied the Finnish naval bases at the time and the
Baltics were fiercely anti-Russian and might have assisted. This is pure
speculation on my part however - the concept of a seaborne invasion in 1939
does appear quite implausible.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Hermann" <hr_hesse@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JOOHd.14797$d5.123458@newsb.telia.net...
> > I don't have the game here, but if I remember from the game, all of the
> > Baltic states had a protection pact from the USSR, so attacking anyone
> > of them would have been equivalent to attacking Poland from the soviet
> > point of view.
>
> I meant occupied by Russia.
>
> Poland backed down _after_ the Russo-German pact was in effect, so the
> Baltic States were considered Russian national provinces, and were
occupied
> by diplomacy.
>
> > In sum, the Germans had no entry route into the USSR except for the sea,
> > which was not feasible in 1939, given that they were at war with the
> > British and the French, and that the German navy could not carry the
> > required number of troops, not to mention other obvious difficulties
> > with a sea invasion of Russia.
>
> Well, it is possible that such an invasion could've been lauched through
> Finland in combination with seaborne landings in the Baltic States, given
> that Russia hadn't occupied the Finnish naval bases at the time and the
> Baltics were fiercely anti-Russian and might have assisted. This is pure
> speculation on my part however - the concept of a seaborne invasion in
1939
> does appear quite implausible.
>
>


Not through Finland. The terrain was completely unsuitable for any kind of
mobility based warfare (it was mostly forest)


-Tomi

 

[hermann]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> let us know how you make out.

Since the chance of the purge happening is 98%, I reversed the odds in the
event file. I wasn't too keen on reloading 30 times.

Anyway, I attacked in May 1939, and while this resulted in an automatic DoW
on the allies, I had to manually DoW Russia (giving me a neat 10% dissent).

My western border was guarded by 3x9 division garrisons, and one extra 9 div
infantry stack in the southernmost area, and France never attempted an
assault.

In June 1939, Poland fell, and I retreated behind the Wisla(?) while I moved
the rest of my army west.

Every area along the river was guarded by 1x9 div infantry, which seemed to
have the deterring effect on Russia as the same strength had on France. In
hindsight, this retreat was probably a mistake - I could just as well have
maintained the old front, but I figured I might need to extra defense from
the river.

In July 1939, I attacked France through Belgium, but bypassing Holland. 27
armoured divisions with 90% organization and leaders like Rommel and
Manstein can work wonders, it seems. By September 1939, France and the Low
Countries (Holland joined the allies by her own accord) had fallen.

A war against Russia prevents Vichy from taking place, but a tiny garrison
of 9 armour was sufficient to mop up any token invasions by the UK.

In October 1939, I started an offensive on the eastern front, and now, by
January 1940, I'm still pushing them back.

This is not a very fair comparison, though, as I had planned for a two-front
war (whereas you were taken by surprise), and was fairly certain of what
kind of defence I would need on other front.