Slitherine

Strategies such as this one are part of a bigger problem. The game is clearly balanced with 1941 Barbarossa in mind. In most regular games both sides have a chance of achieving victory if both players have similar skill. However, 1942 Barbarossa cause many problems from the balance standpoint.

One of the biggest problems is that in regular games, the Germans generally follow strategies that could potentially win them the war, as unlikely as it would be. In this scenario, the Axis player is not using a war-winning strategy, but a game-winning one. A big difference. He knows that all he has to do is to hold out until May 1945. This is obviously nonsensical, as there is nothing special about that date, but in regular games it works well, because it allows the players to compare their results to RL Axis/Allies. However, in the 1942 Barbarossa scenario it causes all sorts of balance problems, as the Allied player may simply run out of time. One could argue that the game should end in Dec 1945 or sth if the Axis player doesn't invade in the first half of 1941...

I won't even mention numerous strange actions like Russian transfer of factories to Siberia and mobilisation in late 1941, surprise chance in 1942 even if the Germans are not attacking, but defending etc. If the Soviets are not strong enough in 1942 to fight the Germans, then why should they attack them? And if they attack them, then why they cannot preposition their troops beforehand? It's funny to see them joining the Allies in 1942 and going on the defensive. The reason for most of these facts is that the devs are trying to achieve a semblance of balance in a nonregular scenario, for which the game mechanics and VCs are poorly suited.

I'm sure that one day somebody will find a proper counter-strategy (equally nonsensical from RL standpoint), then sb will improve this one and so on...

This is the problem with most games. You can't force players to repeat the mistakes of the real war. So we have to make sure we find a game balance that will work with most play strategies. We can't get them all. If we try to fix the game balance against a special strategy then we risk ruining the balance for other strategies.

So in the end you can only hope that the players themselves manage to find ways to counter the new clever strategies that appear.

I don't believe for a second that Supermax'es strategy (Axis fortress Europe) is the ultimate Axis strategy that many Axis players will copy. The same with Morris'es Axis armor/mech blob against Russia.

What many people forget is that it requires A LOT of skill to perform as well as they do. Supermax'es strategy requires that you manage to take out France early and do a very successful Sealion. If you make some kind of mistake, attack too slowly etc. then you will fall behind the time schedule and not succeed with all goals. Then you will lose as the Axis.

So you have to be an elite player who knows perfectly well the game mechanisms before you can do these strategies well enough to succeed. Their fun lies in finding new strategies all the time to test against their opponents.

It's like having a driving contest. You come to the contest with your BMW regular car, then your opponent shows up with the top notch Ferrari sportscar. You might then say that you don't have a chance because the Ferrari is such a faster car, but the truth is that the Ferrari is so difficult to drive that you have to be a very skilled driver to even use its potential. A regular driver might run off the street in the first corner. So who will win the contest? I would put my bet on the BMW driver unless I knew the Ferrari driver was very skilled. It's the same with the strategies of Morris and Supermax. In THEIR hands the strategies are dangerous, but in our hands we might end up losing the game prematurely due to a flawed implementation of the strategy.

I don't think the elite GS players like Supermax are lucky. There are so many combat rolls so luck would have evened out after time. A player like Supermax only does well because of skill. You can have luck in one particular battle and bad luck in the next. A good strategy means you don't depend on luck to achieve your targets.

We had a similar situation in chess where some players (Nakamura in particular) said that Magnus Carlsen was just being lucky in his games and didn't actually deserve to be in the top tournaments. But after being at the top of the FIDE rating lists for several years you can't say that he is lucky anymore. If "luck" happens in almost every game, then maybe it's the player skill you see and not luck. In the chess you win if you manage to make your opponent make a bad move and not make a bad move yourself. So if Magnus'es playing style is that he constantly makes difficult moves to test his opponents then the opponents will eventually make a bad move (becoming tired etc.). You can't then say that you were lucky because your opponent made a bad move. You were the reasont he opponent made a bad move in the first place. Most chess games aren't won with spectacular sacrifices where you overrun your opponent. They're won by exploiting slightly inferior moves by your opponent and then press the advantage.

I think this is exactly how players like Supermax and Morris are playing too. They don't gamble on a single combat result. They just attack so many places so you're skill is tested and if you're not up to it every time they will exploit your not optimal response. That is not luck. It's skill.

I see that the common denominator between Morris and Supermax is that they attack even when their units are depleted. That seems risky to some, but they benefit because they keep the pressure up in the offensive. Losing units doesn't matter as much to them as whether the offensive reaches the targets or not. So they understand that an armor unit on the map is just 85 PP if it's sitting there being repaired or in the defense. It's much more valuable if you can use it to destroy many Russian PP's, even at the expense of losing the unit.

This reminds me if board wargames where I used psychological warfare against one of my opponents. He was very focused on the dice results and said I was lucky all the time. He actually didn't know it was part of my plan to psyche him. He liked to be the attacker and when we played he sometimes rolled 1 or snake eyes (1-1). That was a very bad result. So when he said he was being unlucky I "agreed". Every time he made bad rolls he felt he was losing it and had to take risks to compensate. Only after taking the risks he began losing. I made sure I never commented when he rolled a 6 or (6-6). So all we spoke about was his bad dice rolls and never about the good ones. So he was lured into believing he was unlucky and had to do something on the battleground to turn the tide. I won most games because of that. He was a very skilled player, but too focused upon dice rolls.

Cybvep wrote:Strategies such as this one are part of a bigger problem. The game is clearly balanced with 1941 Barbarossa in mind. In most regular games both sides have a chance of achieving victory if both players have similar skill. However, 1942 Barbarossa cause many problems from the balance standpoint.

One of the biggest problems is that in regular games, the Germans generally follow strategies that could potentially win them the war, as unlikely as it would be. In this scenario, the Axis player is not using a war-winning strategy, but a game-winning one. A big difference. He knows that all he has to do is to hold out until May 1945. This is obviously nonsensical, as there is nothing special about that date, but in regular games it works well, because it allows the players to compare their results to RL Axis/Allies. However, in the 1942 Barbarossa scenario it causes all sorts of balance problems, as the Allied player may simply run out of time. One could argue that the game should end in Dec 1945 or sth if the Axis player doesn't invade in the first half of 1941...

I won't even mention numerous strange actions like Russian transfer of factories to Siberia and mobilisation in late 1941, surprise chance in 1942 even if the Germans are not attacking, but defending etc. If the Soviets are not strong enough in 1942 to fight the Germans, then why should they attack them? And if they attack them, then why they cannot preposition their troops beforehand? It's funny to see them joining the Allies in 1942 and going on the defensive. The reason for most of these facts is that the devs are trying to achieve a semblance of balance in a nonregular scenario, for which the game mechanics and VCs are poorly suited.

I'm sure that one day somebody will find a proper counter-strategy (equally nonsensical from RL standpoint), then sb will improve this one and so on...

Well, please explain to me how you can win in regular game. By winning in taking Omsk... Even Moriss fails in this after his superbely executed Barbarossa in the Joe Rock game.

Fact of the matter is that it is not possible to win an ultimate or decisive victory with the Axis anymore.

So i would like you nto explain how you would "win the war" against Joe Rock, Moriss or Sauffenberg as allies?

The bottom line is that in my game i have a chance to keep Paris, London, which is a lot more than 99% of all games played in theses days.

The mod made the Russians invincible, so i would not describe my game as a "problem", but as a solution ot the quandary of doing a 41 Barbarossa, and ultimatly fail in 42, only to see your army be slowly drained and retreat to german borders.

I am simply playing arouind the obvious: The germans will end the war on their borders or almost when playing regularily.

Dont get me wrong i used to be a "barbarossa lover", but since it cannot win the war for me, i prefer doing something else.

Stauffenberg wrote:This is the problem with most games. You can't force players to repeat the mistakes of the real war. So we have to make sure we find a game balance that will work with most play strategies. We can't get them all. If we try to fix the game balance against a special strategy then we risk ruining the balance for other strategies.

So in the end you can only hope that the players themselves manage to find ways to counter the new clever strategies that appear.

I agree. And sometime its not focusing on reacting to the strategy, but fiing ways to distract the germans on a different timeline.

Example: I am playing against Moriss in a game where i play the allies. The understanding between us is that the goal is to fend off the moriss barbarossa. Well, we havent got there yet, but i am solidly entrenched in Norway around Bergen with 4 planes, 2 INF, 1 MECH and some GAR, and Moriss now has 3 FTR, some 2-4 land troops(or more that i cant see). Stuff that he would really need in a Barbarossa. I also organized a surprise landing in Tirana (we all know that moriss doesnt garrison his cities properly). Now i am just about to land in Sicily. Anyway, it may be that its going to ultimatly fail in keeping the territory,. but strategically, it will have weaken Barbarossa. Which is, to my understanding, the allie's job before the USA get in the war.

So, now he is alking about doing a 1941 Sealion because i am disrupting his preparations. So by forcing the german to react to my moves, i have taken the temporary initiative from him because he needs to build up for Barbarossa.

Does that give you some pointers on how i would defend against my own strategy?
So if i am any successeful i wont even have to face the dreaded Moriss Barbarossa, thus i will fend it off indirectly.

supermax wrote:The mod made the Russians invincible, so i would not describe my game as a "problem", but as a solution ot the quandary of doing a 41 Barbarossa, and ultimatly fail in 42, only to see your army be slowly drained and retreat to german borders.

I have played to short probably so please tell me. Do you mean whole GS2.1 or just recent changes. What is the difference that makes Russia invincible.

By invincible I mean you are 'meant' to loos the GAME by say not being able to hold on Soviet grounds till 1944.

supermax wrote:Well, we havent got there yet, but i am solidly entrenched in Norway around Bergen with 4 planes, 2 INF, 1 MECH and some GAR, and Moriss now has 3 FTR, some 2-4 land troops(or more that i cant see).

If you know that there will not be a Sealinon than yes. If you don't know than you can make a nice present for you opponent

Well, please explain to me how you can win in regular game. By winning in taking Omsk... Even Moriss fails in this after his superbely executed Barbarossa in the Joe Rock game.

Fact of the matter is that it is not possible to win an ultimate or decisive victory with the Axis anymore.

So i would like you nto explain how you would "win the war" against Joe Rock, Moriss or Sauffenberg as allies?

I would like you to explain me how do you expect the Axis to win an ultimate victory as described in CEAW in a game which strives for plausibility. Maybe VCs need to be changed? It's just a thought, but if sth is unattainable, then why it's even there?

BTW the Allies rarely manage to score Ultimate Victory, too.

The bottom line is that in my game i have a chance to keep Paris, London, which is a lot more than 99% of all games played in theses days.

The mod made the Russians invincible, so i would not describe my game as a "problem", but as a solution ot the quandary of doing a 41 Barbarossa, and ultimatly fail in 42, only to see your army be slowly drained and retreat to german borders.

I am simply playing arouind the obvious: The germans will end the war on their borders or almost when playing regularily.

Dont get me wrong i used to be a "barbarossa lover", but since it cannot win the war for me, i prefer doing something else.

I praise your skill and your ability to plan and execute your plans almost perfectly. However, that doesn't change the facts which I described.

I also praise Morris for his cunning ways of exploiting the game mechanics, but that doesn't change the fact that they are gamey, right?

Cybvep wrote:

Well, please explain to me how you can win in regular game. By winning in taking Omsk... Even Moriss fails in this after his superbely executed Barbarossa in the Joe Rock game.

Fact of the matter is that it is not possible to win an ultimate or decisive victory with the Axis anymore.

So i would like you nto explain how you would "win the war" against Joe Rock, Moriss or Sauffenberg as allies?

I would like you to explain me how do you expect the Axis to win an ultimate victory as described in CEAW in a game which strives for plausibility. Maybe VCs need to be changed? It's just a thought, but if sth is unattainable, then why it's even there?

BTW the Allies rarely manage to score Ultimate Victory, too.

The bottom line is that in my game i have a chance to keep Paris, London, which is a lot more than 99% of all games played in theses days.

The mod made the Russians invincible, so i would not describe my game as a "problem", but as a solution ot the quandary of doing a 41 Barbarossa, and ultimatly fail in 42, only to see your army be slowly drained and retreat to german borders.

I am simply playing arouind the obvious: The germans will end the war on their borders or almost when playing regularily.

Dont get me wrong i used to be a "barbarossa lover", but since it cannot win the war for me, i prefer doing something else.

I praise your skill and your ability to plan and execute your plans almost perfectly. However, that doesn't change the facts which I described.

I also praise Morris for his cunning ways of exploiting the game mechanics, but that doesn't change the fact that they are gamey, right?

LOL. I dont think you and I will ever agree on this, so lets give it a rest. You know what i mean and i know what you mean. the simple truth i think is that you are right, if we want the Axis to "win the war", we need to find a way to make that happen, because what i see nowadays is an Axis players that strive for cheap, retreating / defensives ""game victory".

I dont think anyone here can say that i am wrong in saying that in the MOD the germans cannot "win the war", period. So whatever some people think about my strategy, its a try at "winning the war".

In this version of Fortress Europa, i dont know if you guys noticed but i am a lot more offensive, and a lot more powerful on land than the other game. I do want, this time around, to break some russians and see where that gets me. Leningrad i can have easy, Moscow? Well, maybee not, but i can certain hope to have it.

Its just too early to say what i am going to do in a definitive ways, i always adapt my strategy to my opponent's.

I think forcing Russia to surrender (needed for the Axis to win the WAR) should not be possible against a skilled Allied player. The distance from the German / Soviet border to Siberia is so huge so it would be almost impossible to get all the way to Siberia. All Germany could have hoped for was a Russian surrender because they had lost the will to fight. If Hitler believed that was possible then he deluded himself. He obviously didn't know the Russian mentality. They would never have surrendered. Even in occupied territory they continued to fight as partisans.

Britain and Yugoslavia are other examples of countries not yielding to overwhelming pressure.

I think the only way the Germans could have won the war was if they got nuclear weapons first and used them to force the Allies to surrender. That means they must have got it early 1945 at the latest. Even then it would have been hard to win the war because the territory Germany controlled was so small at the time. Maybe they could have forced an Allied surrender if they had got nuclear weapons before Overlord.

GS v2.1 is supposed to recreate the real war and compare game victory to the result you get vs the real result. That means the war is biased in favor of the Allies, just as the real war was. Starting WW2 was the biggest mistake Hitler ever made. Almost nobody in Germany believed it was possible to win. It was only after the swift victories in Europe in 1940 they got some hope. After the Summer of 1941 they believed they could actually do it. German generals realized the war was lost after the Russian winter offensive in 1941. They knew that Russia would not break as Hitler had said.

The truth is that the bigger the territory the Germans would occupy the more soldiers they would have needed for garrison duty and less firepower for taking more ground.

A good Axis player can certainly take Omsk in GS v2.1. Morris almost got there against an elite player like Joerock. Think what would have happened against an average Allied player. Then you get the ultimate Axis victory.

I agree that ultimate Axis victory is impossible against a skilled Allied player, but the vice versa is also true. As the Allies you simply can't expect to be in Berlin before the end of 1943 against a good Axis player. Even a strategic Allied victory is very difficult (being in Berlin before the Summer of 1944). You have to be good to get a major victory (before the end of 1944). So a minor victory is the most likely outcome if you win.

I think that if two elite players play against each other then one of them should get a minor victory.

So I feel the degree of victory you can get is quite balanced in GS v2.1.

Getting an ultimate victory should only be possible against an inferior opponent. The same with strategic victory. You must have made a big blunder to lose that big. I don't see anything wrong with that. Ultimate victories should be prizes the best players could get against inferior players who lost their will to fight as well as they could. If you try your best I think most players should be able to limit the loss to a major defeat.

Still, I won't say an ultimate Axis victory is impossible. It's certainly possible if you make a May 1941 Barbarossa and the Russians decide to make a forward defense or retreat in panic. Then they won't have enough forces by the end of 1941 to make a winter offensive or they lost too much territory. In 1942 Germany has a golden opportunity to get Omsk. It requires some skill for the Russians to prevent that from happening. Most Axis players won't even try against skilled opponents, but if they tried (like Morris) they could actually get close.

Ronnie and I have got reports from several players being overrun as the Allies and lost Moscow in 1941 and Omsk in 1942. So it's certainly possible with GS v2.1, but you haven't seen these reports as AAR's yet.

I don't think elite players would lose Omsk in any of their Allied games. Average Joe (not JoeRock ), however, is certainly capable of losing Omsk in 1942.

Stauffenberg wrote:I think forcing Russia to surrender (needed for the Axis to win the WAR) should not be possible against a skilled Allied player. The distance from the German / Soviet border to Siberia is so huge so it would be almost impossible to get all the way to Siberia. All Germany could have hoped for was a Russian surrender because they had lost the will to fight. If Hitler believed that was possible then he deluded himself. He obviously didn't know the Russian mentality. They would never have surrendered. Even in occupied territory they continued to fight as partisans.

Britain and Yugoslavia are other examples of countries not yielding to overwhelming pressure.

I think the only way the Germans could have won the war was if they got nuclear weapons first and used them to force the Allies to surrender. That means they must have got it early 1945 at the latest. Even then it would have been hard to win the war because the territory Germany controlled was so small at the time. Maybe they could have forced an Allied surrender if they had got nuclear weapons before Overlord.

GS v2.1 is supposed to recreate the real war and compare game victory to the result you get vs the real result. That means the war is biased in favor of the Allies, just as the real war was. Starting WW2 was the biggest mistake Hitler ever made. Almost nobody in Germany believed it was possible to win. It was only after the swift victories in Europe in 1940 they got some hope. After the Summer of 1941 they believed they could actually do it. German generals realized the war was lost after the Russian winter offensive in 1941. They knew that Russia would not break as Hitler had said.

The truth is that the bigger the territory the Germans would occupy the more soldiers they would have needed for garrison duty and less firepower for taking more ground.

A good Axis player can certainly take Omsk in GS v2.1. Morris almost got there against an elite player like Joerock. Think what would have happened against an average Allied player. Then you get the ultimate Axis victory.

I agree that ultimate Axis victory is impossible against a skilled Allied player, but the vice versa is also true. As the Allies you simply can't expect to be in Berlin before the end of 1943 against a good Axis player. Even a strategic Allied victory is very difficult (being in Berlin before the Summer of 1944). You have to be good to get a major victory (before the end of 1944). So a minor victory is the most likely outcome if you win.

I think that if two elite players play against each other then one of them should get a minor victory.

So I feel the degree of victory you can get is quite balanced in GS v2.1.

I quite agree there after reading this Borger. So that is why i am trying something different, to see if i can break the deadlock. Ive done sooo many games with barbarossa that i need some changes anyway!

I think that winnig the war is quite impossible (Omsk). But, the way i am positionned right now, well there is a possibility, even if small, to keep London and Paris, thsu rendering the whole athing a nice victory for the germans

Yes, the Russians would never break in the real world war 2. But would they have lost the will to fight after 2-3 years of frontline stallemate with germans that didnt really invade their home territory? I think that might have been possible... So a peace between germany and Russia if Germany was strongly controlling Europe would be plausible especially if the german didnt piss off the Russians like they did in real life. Only occupying former Romania and the baltic states isnst really a bad thing for the Russians except a bit of prestige... After 2-3 years of stalemate they might have told themselve the heck with prestige...

The Roman Empire is actually a bad example, as it existed for centuries and for a long time it was based on republican institutions. Also, the Roman law was highly developed for its time and was probably as close to the rule of law as it was possible in the Antiquity. You cannot say the same about the Soviet and Nazi systems. No, I think that a Roman Empire would be a better example of the simple but true fact that every empire deteriorates, eventually. The Chinese Empire would be another such example.

If IRL the Germans took Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Baku and pushed the Soviets back to the Urals, it is possible that a peace treaty would be signed. If there was no treaty and no intensive combat, then the conflict would probably slowly fade out on its own. With no Eastern Front, it's hard to imagine the Allies doing an Overlord - a Cold War between the USA/UK and Germany and its satellites would be more likely.

That is beyond the scope of GS. We only have permission to mod the CeaW using the same map area and time period as CeaW. Therefore I think it's best to declare the winner comparing how you did to the real war. If we had played the war and declared the winner from who won the war then we should be able to play to 1950 and beyond. Then we would need techs like missiles, nuclear weapons, helicopters etc.

As I said before, this works well in case of 1941 Barbarossa, but not in case of 1942 Barbarossa.

We should stop discussing about game behavior vs historical reality. This is a game, not a simulation, in fact it is not even a wargame, the OOBs are not historical and the game mechanics don´t allow for that even if we tried to make them historical.
The game works as an streamlined strategy WW2 game with plausible results, and works very well as that.
Now, there is the question of Barbar5ossa, why giving the German player the option not to attack SU but not the option not to declare war on US? Historically Hitler made an enormous mistake declaring war on US, he had not the obligation to do it since Japan was the agressor, now that would make it possible a complete victory over SU.
OTOH I think that if it is the Soviet Union who declares war on Germany, the Allied player should have the chance to reposition his units, and to get more labs and PPs while preparing for war, as it is now it is rather a Barbarossa in 1942.

First of all I'd like to apologize to Max for cluttering up his AAR with off topic posts. Max, I'll leave it up to you but if you like I can move the off-topic discussion part of this AAR to it's own thread. Just let me know.

Aryaman wrote:We should stop discussing about game behavior vs historical reality. This is a game, not a simulation, in fact it is not even a wargame, the OOBs are not historical and the game mechanics don´t allow for that even if we tried to make them historical.

It may be semantics and my closeness to GS; but I disagree with your characterization that GS is not wargame. In the 41-years since I've been playing wargames (started at age 12 in 1971) GS fits that gene. I also disagree with your the statement that GS isn't a simulation. I personally feel that at the corps level GS certainly is. It may not be at the level of fidelity of WiF ( who is); but it's certainly a much better simulation (in my opinion) than Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich or, more recently, Strategic Command 2. My experience playing GS is that the alternate strategies and results possible are alternate realities consistent with the historical record.

Aryaman wrote:The game works as an streamlined strategy WW2 game with plausible results, and works very well as that.
Now, there is the question of Barbar5ossa, why giving the German player the option not to attack SU but not the option not to declare war on US? Historically Hitler made an enormous mistake declaring war on US, he had not the obligation to do it since Japan was the agressor, now that would make it possible a complete victory over SU.

What axis player, if given the option, would ever declare war on the US?

A lot has been said about victory condition versus winning the war. One way to look at this as the axis is that you are the supreme military commander; but you are not the head of government. Going to war and staying at war are their decisions. Your job is to do the best that you can for your country. Though you know that the war is unwinnable your objective is to place your country in a position of strength and hope to force a negotiated peace. If you win as the axis then I view this as achieving an negotiated peace over unconditional surrender. How favorable the negotiated peace is is the level of your victory.

rkr1958 wrote:First of all I'd like to apologize to Max for cluttering up his AAR with off topic posts. Max, I'll leave it up to you but if you like I can move the off-topic discussion part of this AAR to it's own thread. Just let me know.

Aryaman wrote:We should stop discussing about game behavior vs historical reality. This is a game, not a simulation, in fact it is not even a wargame, the OOBs are not historical and the game mechanics don´t allow for that even if we tried to make them historical.

It may be semantics and my closeness to GS; but I disagree with your characterization that GS is not wargame. In the 41-years since I've been playing wargames (started at age 12 in 1971) GS fits that gene. I also disagree with your the statement that GS isn't a simulation. I personally feel that at the corps level GS certainly is. It may not be at the level of fidelity of WiF ( who is); but it's certainly a much better simulation (in my opinion) than Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich or, more recently, Strategic Command 2. My experience playing GS is that the alternate strategies and results possible are alternate realities consistent with the historical record.

Aryaman wrote:The game works as an streamlined strategy WW2 game with plausible results, and works very well as that.
Now, there is the question of Barbar5ossa, why giving the German player the option not to attack SU but not the option not to declare war on US? Historically Hitler made an enormous mistake declaring war on US, he had not the obligation to do it since Japan was the agressor, now that would make it possible a complete victory over SU.

What axis player, if given the option, would ever declare war on the US?

A lot has been said about victory condition versus winning the war. One way to look at this as the axis is that you are the supreme military commander; but you are not the head of government. Going to war and staying at war are their decisions. Your job is to do the best that you can for your country. Though you know that the war is unwinnable your objective is to place your country in a position of strength and hope to force a negotiate peace. If you win as the axis then I view this as achieving an negotiate peace over unconditional surrender. How favorable the negotiate peace is is the level of your victory.

Ronnie dont worry about the off-topic. Its topic for me i find it interested... Besides, i love all the attention

Aryaman wrote:We should stop discussing about game behavior vs historical reality. This is a game, not a simulation, in fact it is not even a wargame, the OOBs are not historical and the game mechanics don´t allow for that even if we tried to make them historical.
The game works as an streamlined strategy WW2 game with plausible results, and works very well as that.
Now, there is the question of Barbar5ossa, why giving the German player the option not to attack SU but not the option not to declare war on US? Historically Hitler made an enormous mistake declaring war on US, he had not the obligation to do it since Japan was the agressor, now that would make it possible a complete victory over SU.
OTOH I think that if it is the Soviet Union who declares war on Germany, the Allied player should have the chance to reposition his units, and to get more labs and PPs while preparing for war, as it is now it is rather a Barbarossa in 1942.

Actually it was JAPAN who DoW'ed USA. That is an event in GS v2.1 outside the scope of the game What it means is that USA activates and can start moving their units. If we didn't have this historical event the USA would stay neutral through the entire game and that's not historical at all. The same with Russia mobilizing in October 1941.

Roosevelt wanted to help Churchill against Germany, but couldn't prior to December 1941 make a DoW against Germany. Many US politicials were isolationists because the US public didn't want to participate again in a war across the Atlantic. Everything changed when Japan attacked USA. Then USA was at war.

One could argue that USA would probably not have DoW'ed Germany until they were ready to do something in Europe. In GS we usually see USA using 1942 for build up and only late 1942 will they start Torch and engage Axis units. The exception is US units might help hunt for subs. But if the subs weren't there then the US would rarely be in action in 1942.

So whether Germany DoW'ed USA soon after the Japanese attack upon USA or not is not that relevant to game play. USA would after some months be engaged in war against Germany regardless.

So whether Germany DoW'ed USA soon after the Japanese attack upon USA or not is not that relevant to game play. USA would after some months be engaged in war against Germany regardless.

I agree. IRL the Germans made it easier for them, but it seems rather obvious that the USA would DOW Germany sooner or later, although initially there would probably be more focus on Japan.

Anyway, if we give the Axis player the option of not DOWing the USA, then I cannot see why any player would choose to attack them. The regular game would become the UK/SOV against GER and I doubt that we want that.

rkr1958 wrote:It may be semantics and my closeness to GS; but I disagree with your characterization that GS is not wargame. In the 41-years since I've been playing wargames (started at age 12 in 1971) GS fits that gene. I also disagree with your the statement that GS isn't a simulation. I personally feel that at the corps level GS certainly is. It may not be at the level of fidelity of WiF ( who is); but it's certainly a much better simulation (in my opinion) than Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich or, more recently, Strategic Command 2. My experience playing GS is that the alternate strategies and results possible are alternate realities consistent with the historical record.

As you say, it may be semantics, I see a necessary condition for a game to be called a wargame to have an historical OOB, and certainly GS doesn´t have one, and don´t get me wrong, I love the game, but we should stop discussing modifications with the argument of historical reality, because the game is not a simulation in that respect, or we wouldn´t have a French army with no Armour units and an Italian army that does have one, for instance.