Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.0

A forum to discuss custom scenarios, campaigns and modding in general.

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design

LandMarine47
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:44 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by LandMarine47 » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:33 am

Do you plan on releasing as a beta?

iceFlame
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:11 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by iceFlame » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:05 am

McGuba wrote:The turn to Kiev was a big mistake in 1941, but it is a question if the capture of Moscow in 1941 would have meant the defeat of the USSR. By that time the Soviets moved many of their factories to the Ural, and they already sacrificed their capital once to Napoleon, so they got used to it. And the fresh forces from the far east were there anyway, ready for a winter counter attack.
I know a lot of people would agree with you on this, but largely for the sake of discussion, I like to play devil's advocate and take the alternate point of view.

While it's true that Napoleon's capture of Moscow in 1812 did him little good, I would suggest the Moscow of 1941 was a very different place. Since the dawn of the Soviet era, (in post-revolutionary Russia), the new powers-that-be undertook a massive campaign of centralization. As a result, Moscow was transformed into the political, economic, social and communication hub of the entire country. It was in a very real sense, the centralized nerve centre of the new nation.

This being the case, I would suggest the sudden loss of Moscow in the fall of 1941 would likely have produced a paralyzing effect far greater than its mere strategic value. The resulting shock wave would likely have destabilized and demoralized the war effort to the point where a collapse of organized resistance may have become a real possibility. To illustrate, the effect of losing the 'nerve centre' could be compared to the body losing the brain.

Following this line of thought, I tend to agree with Guderian's daring plan to strip the spearheads of their support troops and make for Moscow at breakneck speed, bypassing all resistance and being supplied solely by air. If the war in the east was ultimately going to be decided by an all-or-nothing gambit, then this is the one I would place my chips on.

In any event, the mod looks really promising so thanks again for all the hard work and I sincerely hope the testing goes well. :D
Image
Go deep here: slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=49469

BiteNibbleChomp
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:35 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by BiteNibbleChomp » Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:32 am

McGuba wrote:
not sure if you've told us this yet - does this start in 1939 or in 1941?
The campaign starts in 1939 with the invasion of Poland, followed by 1940 France and Low Countries, and Spring 1941 Balkans - Mediterranean - North Africa. These are fairly simple "traditional" 10-20 turn long scenarios, with a little twist here and there. Then comes the long 1941-45 scenario. So there are basically four scenarios, the early ones serving as tutorials. All can be played individually as well.
Darn, why I not think of this with War of the World!

- BNC
Creator of American Civil War mod for Strategic Command WWI!
Discuss here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4504986
Download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/tj4t11z3ttl142w/SCACW.zip/file

LandMarine47
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:44 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by LandMarine47 » Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:18 pm

Since I'm new to this mod, What exactly happens to aircraft parked on the ground when attacked? Can they be captured?

McGuba
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1162
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by McGuba » Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:13 pm

LandMarine47 wrote:
Do you plan on releasing as a beta?
Once I manage to playtest the campaign at least once, I will. Problem is that, I constatly have new scripting ideas which need to be tested and and it also means a restart of the scenario. For instance last time I had an idea how to set the stage for a possible Battle of Kursk, which may or may not work. So it is still changing a bit, but now I got to a point when I am fairly satisfied with the events up to 1943. I also make minor, but important changes to the equipment file sometimes.
iceFlame wrote:
I know a lot of people would agree with you on this, but largely for the sake of discussion, I like to play devil's advocate and take the alternate point of view.

While it's true that Napoleon's capture of Moscow in 1812 did him little good, I would suggest the Moscow of 1941 was a very different place. Since the dawn of the Soviet era, (in post-revolutionary Russia), the new powers-that-be undertook a massive campaign of centralization. As a result, Moscow was transformed into the political, economic, social and communication hub of the entire country. It was in a very real sense, the centralized nerve centre of the new nation.
No problem at all, on the contrary, I find this conversation very interesting and thought provoking. The fact that Moscow was not taken by the Germans means that we will never know for sure what would have happened. And the devil in me would like to strenghten your point by adding that Moscow was not only a political, economic, social and communication hub, but also the main transportation hub. If we take a look on a map of Russia we can clearly see that all the main roads and railways are leading to the capital. This is well represented by the map I made, e.g. diverting troops from Leningrad to down south is not so easy as Moscow, as long as it is owned by the enemy, blocks the direct railway line. So it can only be done by taking the longer way across wilderness of Belarus and the Ukraine. And it can be quite annoying when a train carrying my brand new PzIVF2 is stopped and damaged by a week partisan unit, as it happened to me in my last test play...

However, only to fuel the anti-Moscow party, German pre-war strategic planning aimed to reach the Archangelsk-Astrakhan line, which is way beyond Moscow and much greater in scale than just a spearheaded attack to quickly capture the capital. So, in this mod the capture of Moscow will not mean the defeat of the USSR, though thanks to your important feedback, the player will be awarded some prestige, and there would be less Soviet reinforcements appearing later to represent the loss of manpower. But, the capture of the Caucasus region will still be more rewarding because of the oil deposit. Especially from 1944 German strategic and tactical planning, not to mention the operations of the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine, was seriously hampered by the lack of oil. I think that at that stage of the war the possesion of the oil fields of the Caucasus would have meant more than the possesion of Moscow. Also, gameplaywise, if the capture of Moscow would be too decisive in its effect, than it would considerably shorten the scenario, taking away much of the "fun" that would come later. And BNC already suggested extending the time frame to 1947-ish something...

Thanks for the good wishes, testing goes well, even though I am very much restricted by the limited number of available AI zones. If there were more of these, like a hundred or so, I could make the AI's responses more human like. On the other hand, in that case I would probably never finish with it as I would always add more and more AI scripts to make it even more accurate... :oops:

BNC wrote:
Darn, why I not think of this with War of the World!
It is never too late to revise... :wink:

LandMarine47 wrote:
Since I'm new to this mod, What exactly happens to aircraft parked on the ground when attacked? Can they be captured?
Well, I do not think that the Germans had too high regard of those outdated biplanes and bombers so capture is not an option here, sorry. What happens to them if they are attacked is that they get destroyed on the ground, haha. Just like a large percent of Soviet aircraft on the first day of Barbarossa. However, if there are no enemy aircraft above them they will take off and attack the invaders.
ImageImage
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=36969

LandMarine47
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:44 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by LandMarine47 » Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:24 pm

How about Modern Planes? I think they should be parked to say, get a new upgrade or reinforcement! Making Dogfighting that much more critical (and time consuming)
Last edited by LandMarine47 on Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

McGuba
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1162
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by McGuba » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:14 pm

How about Modern Planes? I think they should be parked to say, get a new upgrade KPR reinforcement! Making Dogfighting that much more critical (and time consuming)
I do not think I fully get it, sorry. You mean that air units could only be upgraded to a new type or reinforced if they are on the ground? It could be cool, but I do not think that it would have major effect on gameplay. But, it would mean quite a lot of extra work to make the new landed graphics for all the existing air units. And then the AI would almost certainly be unable to reinforce its aircraft. This would need some extra code added to it, I guess.
ImageImage
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=36969

LandMarine47
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:44 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by LandMarine47 » Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:15 am

Yes, sorry for my damn auto correct. :|

BiteNibbleChomp
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:35 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by BiteNibbleChomp » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:16 am

I seriously don't see any point of landed aircraft after turn 1 of anything

- BNC
Creator of American Civil War mod for Strategic Command WWI!
Discuss here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4504986
Download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/tj4t11z3ttl142w/SCACW.zip/file

iceFlame
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:11 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by iceFlame » Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:01 am

McGuba wrote:The fact that Moscow was not taken by the Germans means that we will
never know for sure what would have happened.
Very true, which makes it one the most interesting 'what-if' scenarios.
And the devil in me would like to strenghten your point by adding that Moscow was not only a political, economic, social and communication hub, but also the main transportation hub.
Good point. Silly of me to have left that out. :oops:
However, only to fuel the anti-Moscow party, German pre-war strategic planning aimed to reach the Archangelsk-Astrakhan line, which is way beyond Moscow and much greater in scale than just a spearheaded attack to quickly capture the capital.
Quite correct, which raises a series of interesting points that I would like to briefly touch on. By way of background, in August of 1940, Major-General Erich Marcks prepared a plan for the invasion of Russia called "Draft Operational Plan East". It was this study that formed the basis of Operation Barbarossa, including the ultimate goal of the A-A line which you cited.

One of the things I find interesting however, is that Marcks never recommended such a deep occupation, but rather advocated an advance to Arkhangelsk-Gorky-Rostov as being sufficient to achieve German goals. Needless to say, this did not envision an advance on Stalingrad or the Caucasus as necessary to crush Soviet resistance. Furthermore as Gorky is almost directly behind Moscow (approximately 200 miles to the east), it seems to suggest the original planners did not consider a drive far beyond Moscow as necessary to 'complete' the campaign. Again this suggests the planners considered the capture of Moscow as being of critical importance to crush Soviet defense.

In this regard Marcks states:

"The purpose of the campaign is to strike the Russian Armed Forces and to make Russia incapable of entering the war as an opponent of Germany in the foreseeable future. In order to protect Germany against Russian bombers Russia must be occupied to the line lower Don - central Volga - north Dnieper. The main centres of the Russian war economy lie in the food- and raw-material-producing areas of the Ukraine and Donets Basin and the armament industries of Moscow and Leningrad. The eastern industrial regions are not yet productive enough.

Of these areas Moscow constitutes the economic, political, and spiritual centre of the USSR. Its capture would destroy the coordination of the Russian state."

So here, (at the very inception of the plan), we have an implicit recognition of the importance of Moscow to the overall coordination of the state. I find it interesting that the planners clearly recognized this even though the probable effect seems to have been somewhat lost on those in operational command. Also, his appraisal that 'the eastern industrial regions are not yet productive enough' does not seem to have been lost on the Russians who (at the onset of invasion), quickly scrambled to try and correct the danger of mass centralization before it was too late.

To be fair, Marcks did recognize the importance of oil as he went on to say:

"The Russians will not do us the favour of attacking. We must expect that the Russian Army will remain on the defensive against us and that only the Air Force and the Navy, namely the submarine arm, will attack. Russia will wage war by means of a blockade. For this purpose a Russian breakthrough into Rumania seems probable, in order to deprive us of oil. At the very least, strong air attacks on the Rumanian airfields must be expected."

He then goes on to further illustrate the differences between 1812 and 1941:

"On the other hand, the Russians cannot avoid a decision as they did in 1812. Modern armed forces of 100 divisions cannot abandon their sources of supply. It is to be expected that the Russian Army will stand to do battle in a defensive position protecting greater Russia and in the eastern Ukraine. It will find a good defensive position on the line Dvina as far as the Plozk - Beresina - the Pripet Marsh - Zbrutsch - Pruth or Dniester. This line is already partly fortified. A withdrawal to the Dnieper is also possible. In front of this line the Russians will probably fight delaying actions only."

When he concludes that modern armed forces 'cannot abandon their sources of supply', it suggests to me his belief that the Soviets would be forced to stand and fight rather than retreat as in the war of 1812. Sadly, this reasoning seems to have been misinterpreted into the idea that the Red Army could be destroyed via grand battles of encirclement such as at Kiev in 1941.
So, in this mod the capture of Moscow will not mean the defeat of the USSR, though thanks to your important feedback, the player will be awarded some prestige, and there would be less Soviet reinforcements appearing later to represent the loss of manpower.
Sounds great! Thanks for making the adjustment. :D
But, the capture of the Caucasus region will still be more rewarding because of the oil deposit. Especially from 1944 German strategic and tactical planning, not to mention the operations of the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine, was seriously hampered by the lack of oil. I think that at that stage of the war the possesion of the oil fields of the Caucasus would have meant more than the possesion of Moscow.
At this stage of the war I agree. But in 1941, I suspect Moscow would have meant more. :)
Also, gameplaywise, if the capture of Moscow would be too decisive in its effect, than it would considerably shorten the scenario, taking away much of the "fun" that would come later. And BNC already suggested extending the time frame to 1947-ish something...
I understand. Game-play-wise it wouldn't be practical, but I am happy you added the prestige and adjusted the manpower to make Moscow a more valuable target.
Thanks for the good wishes, testing goes well, even though I am very much restricted by the limited number of available AI zones. If there were more of these, like a hundred or so, I could make the AI's responses more human like. On the other hand, in that case I would probably never finish with it as I would always add more and more AI scripts to make it even more accurate... :oops:
Noooo, don't say never... :wink: I'm sure lots of people are hoping for a release so as long as you do the best you can we'll all be happy! Best of luck and continued success.
Image
Go deep here: slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=49469

McGuba
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1162
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by McGuba » Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:58 am

"The Russians will not do us the favour of attacking. We must expect that the Russian Army will remain on the defensive against us and that only the Air Force and the Navy, namely the submarine arm, will attack. Russia will wage war by means of a blockade. For this purpose a Russian breakthrough into Rumania seems probable, in order to deprive us of oil. At the very least, strong air attacks on the Rumanian airfields must be expected."
Wow! I am very happy to read this, thanks for sharing, I did not know about it, but it fits in my general concept extremly well as I already set up the scenario according to this assumption. (Even though, one does not have to be a genius to come to this conclusion...) That is, if the player decides at the beginning to go against the British instead of the USSR, then the Soviet aircraft and the submarines will still move out from their bases, attacking the Germans and the Romanians, but the bulk of the land forces will remain on the defensive. At least, for a while. As the Soviet winter offensives of 1941 and 1942 are pre-set they will happen wheter or not the Germans are at their gates (even though if there are no Axis occupied Soviet victory objectives at that time they will attack with less units in these offensives, indicating that the Soviets are not fueled by the morale boosting "Great Patriotic War" feeling). And many of the units involved in these offensives are set to attacker, meaning that they will move towards the closest enemy held victory objective - which is apparantly Bucharest and the Ploiesti oil fields in Romania... Needs to be tested though, but normally it should happen like that...

At this stage of the war I agree. But in 1941, I suspect Moscow would have meant more.
There is no disagreement in this at all. 1941 was mainly about Moscow (and Leningrad and Kiev), but from 1942 it lost its importance in favour of the Caucasus IMO partly because the Soviets were expecting the renewed offensive there again (and Sun Tzu says attack where the enemy does not defend itself) and partly because the lack of enough oil supplies in a protracted war were getting an increasing concern.

...

I continued to think about the possible consequencies of an early Geman attack on Moscow in 1941. Given that the Germans did not take the turn south to help the capture of Kiev, they should have reached the outskirts Moscow let's say two months earlier, in October, instead of December., right? Question is that, could this two month be enough to capture such a huge city before the Soviet winter counter offensive was started? My assumption is that counter offensive with the fresh troops from the far east and with the brand new heavy tanks would have happened anyway in December and if, at that time, Germans were still fighting within the city, it could have easily led to an even more decisive "Stalingrad like" encirclement with much of the infantry being trapped in Moscow. I do not know the strenght of the available forces that could have been used to defend the city in October, but I suspect there must have been some units, maybe enough to hold the city for just two months, until the fresh troops arrived to attack. Even then, Moscow was a huge city, possibly larger than any of Leningrad, Kiev, Odessa, Stalingrad, or Sevastopol, and all of these were held for many weeks, and, with the exception of Kiev, for more than two months. And even in the case of Kiev, the siege was only concluded earlier because of the units diverted from Moscow.
ImageImage
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=36969

iceFlame
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:11 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by iceFlame » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:27 pm

McGuba wrote:Wow! I am very happy to read this, thanks for sharing, I did not know about it, but it fits in my general concept extremly well as I already set up the scenario according to this assumption.


Really glad that helped. And excellent planning on your part. :)
There is no disagreement in this at all. 1941 was mainly about Moscow (and Leningrad and Kiev), but from 1942 it lost its importance in favour of the Caucasus IMO partly because the Soviets were expecting the renewed offensive there again (and Sun Tzu says attack where the enemy does not defend itself) and partly because the lack of enough oil supplies in a protracted war were getting an increasing concern.
Agreed. By 1942 the decentralization of industry to the east plus the buildup of forces around Moscow had served to render the opportunity lost. So as you say, the strategic situation had changed drastically and opportunities had to be sought elsewhere.

BTW, interesting you mention Sun Tzu and attacking where the enemy does not expect it. It reminds me of arguably the greatest German success in attacking with concentrated armor through the supposedly impenetrable Ardennes in 1940. The attack was so swift and so unexpected that the Western Allies were kept off-balance largely due to the sheer pace of the advance.

Consider if you will what would have happened if after crossing the Meuse the Germans merely sat in the beachheads for two months while they focused on clearing the Allies from Belgium in an infantry driven sideshow? This is basically what happened in July of 1941 when Fuhrer directive 33 announced the shift to Kiev.

In his memoirs Heinz Guderian wrote: "I never received any further orders as to what I was to do once the bridgehead over the Meuse was secured. All my decisions, until I reached the Atlantic seaboard at Abbeville were taken by me and me alone. The Supreme Command's influence on my actions was merely restrictive throughout."

So basically, Guderian 'dragged' the High Command to the Atlantic. This resulted in the greatest German victory of the war as the Allied defenders were so disrupted by the pace of the advance that they were never afforded an opportunity to prepare an organized defense. Virtually every time they tried, the panzers were already in the rear of the newly proposed line of defense.

Now then back to the east. Rather than maintaining a blitzkrieg advance on Moscow in July of 1941, the Germans opted to turn south and give the Soviets a two month reprieve in which to organize their defenses. In July, Army Group Center faced four armies between itself and Moscow. By the time Operation Typhoon was finally launched in October, AGC now faced nine rested armies all fully prepared and waiting.

Despite squandering the initiative, Typhoon still managed to reach the outskirts of Moscow so I suppose the question is how well would it have done if it had been launched in July when opposing forces were still scant and unprepared?
I continued to think about the possible consequencies of an early Geman attack on Moscow in 1941. Given that the Germans did not take the turn south to help the capture of Kiev, they should have reached the outskirts Moscow let's say two months earlier, in October, instead of December., right?
Yes, if not even sooner for the initial pace of Barbarossa had been quite breathtaking. As Von Manstein wrote in Lost Victories:

"Exactly four days and five hours after zero hour [the 56th Panzer Corps] had actually completed as the crow flies a non-stop dash through 200 miles of enemy territory ... if at the same time Panzer Group H.Q, pushed the (41st) Panzer Corps straight through Dvinsk behind us, it seemed likely that the enemy would have to keep opposing us with whatever forces he had on hand at the moment and be incapable ... of fighting a set battle."

When the Germans began their self imposed halt near Smolensk in July, (in order to prepare to turn south to Kiev), they were already within 186 miles of Moscow. This being the case, if they were able to maintain the dash (and keep the defenders off-balance and incapable of fighting set battles) then I have no doubt they would have arrived at Moscow in much less than two months.
Question is that, could this two month be enough to capture such a huge city before the Soviet winter counter offensive was started? My assumption is that counter offensive with the fresh troops from the far east and with the brand new heavy tanks would have happened anyway in December and if, at that time, Germans were still fighting within the city, it could have easily led to an even more decisive "Stalingrad like" encirclement with much of the infantry being trapped in Moscow.
You raise a good point, but I think it unlikely for a number of reasons. First is the fact that Stalingrad and Moscow are very different in terms of geography. While Stalingrad lies entirely on the west bank of the Volga, which serves as a natural barrier along its rear, Moscow is much easier to flank. The major waterways in and around Moscow would already have been breached during the attempt to occupy, so German armor would be in a much better position to maneuver and respond to the winter counter attack.

Also in 1941, the flanks would not be guarded by ill-equipped Axis minor forces, so a devastating Stalingrad type encirclement seems far less likely. Last but not least, the historical winter offensive of 1941 failed to produce anything approaching the stunning success of Uranus, so I see little reason to suggest it might have if the Germans had advanced to Moscow.
I do not know the strenght of the available forces that could have been used to defend the city in October, but I suspect there must have been some units, maybe enough to hold the city for just two months, until the fresh troops arrived to attack. Even then, Moscow was a huge city, possibly larger than any of Leningrad, Kiev, Odessa, Stalingrad, or Sevastopol, and all of these were held for many weeks, and, with the exception of Kiev, for more than two months. And even in the case of Kiev, the siege was only concluded earlier because of the units diverted from Moscow.
This is perhaps the most interesting question of all. Namely, what might have happened in heavy street fighting? While it's obviously a huge 'what if', there are a number of factors to consider.

Firstly, AGC would have had much better weather in which to fight. Second, (by avoiding Kiev), they would have avoided 36 days of exhausting combat plus at least 800 miles of wear and tear on the vehicles, not counting losses, injuries and battle damage. Then if we propose an immediate dash to the capital, it seems conceivable that a coordinated pincer movement may have succeeded in cutting off many of the Soviet regulars before they were able to retreat into the city.

If this was accomplished, (and it does seem within the realm of possibility), then the street fighting might have come down to veteran German infantry against mostly Russian civilians, militia and NKVD. If it did come down to this then I would think the veterans would do quite well.
Image
Go deep here: slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=49469

iceFlame
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:11 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by iceFlame » Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:33 am

One final thought I'd like to add to my last post... :)

If events had unfolded along the lines of that which I described in my last post, then I think it fair to ask whether Stalin's regime would have survived the potential loss of Moscow. If he had remained in the city then I think his regime would almost certainly have been buried in the rubble.

If, on the other hand, he fled despite his order of no withdrawal, then the question becomes could he survive the loss of so much prestige?

As I touched on earlier, the new industrial centres in the east were still at a relatively primitive state in the late summer and fall of '41. Certainly not established enough to constitute legitimate bases upon which to continue the struggle in force. Also, as stated previously, the fall of Moscow would have made the continued coordination of the state a very difficult task indeed.

On top of this, we have the very real possibility of several new scenarios that might have been triggered by such a major development. Might the Japanese have reconsidered an incursion into Siberia after the fall of Moscow? (Much as Mussolini was persuaded to intervene as a result of the German success in the West in 1940). If they had, the forces for the winter counter attack are suddenly pinned in the far east.

And what of the Soviet Asian republics that were none too friendly toward Moscow at the best of times? Would the sudden loss of the capitol embolden them to open revolt? If so, the state that is already severely dislocated is now subject to both external and internal rupture.

Another possibility is that the capture of Moscow may have brought Turkey into the war, in which case the oil rich regions of the Caucasus would have come under direct threat in '41 instead of 1942.

And what of the military and the party? If Stalin had fled, despite his order of no retreat, would he have been toppled by a military or political coup? If so, might his successors (faced with possible Japanese and Turkish incursions and internal Asian revolts) have sued for peace?

Food for thought.
Image
Go deep here: slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=49469

LandMarine47
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:44 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by LandMarine47 » Mon Feb 10, 2014 4:32 am

In my opinion, just like in WW1 if Stalin got away, they would just plain stop fighting and walk to their (probably destroyed) homes, assuming they get past the NKVD patrolling the streets. Then mutinies would occur, followed by an all out revolution... (Probably a German puppet state, Vichy Russia!)

McGuba
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1162
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by McGuba » Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:44 am

One final thought I'd like to add to my last post...
Thanks for your thougths. I find it quite fascinating to think about these "what if " scenarios of history. Like I wrote, while we will never what could have happened exactly, it appears that the world as we know it today cannot be thankful enough to the fuehrer for forcing Guderian to take the turn south and in this way setting the stage for his own fall in the end. (However, some might say first he did it when he started Op Barbarossa... or the invasion of Poland...)

And we cannot be thankful enough for the makers of the original Panzer General, who were aware of the importance of that fateful decision, and made the Early Moscow scenario in which the player could capture the Soviet capital much easier and thus win the war in the east. Luckily, only virtually.
ImageImage
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=36969

BiteNibbleChomp
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:35 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by BiteNibbleChomp » Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:34 am

LandMarine47 wrote:In my opinion, just like in WW1 if Stalin got away, they would just plain stop fighting and walk to their (probably destroyed) homes, assuming they get past the NKVD patrolling the streets. Then mutinies would occur, followed by an all out revolution... (Probably a German puppet state, Vichy Russia!)
Vichy was (and still is) a French Town - in the case of Russia it might be something like "Irkutsk Russia"

- BNC
Creator of American Civil War mod for Strategic Command WWI!
Discuss here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4504986
Download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/tj4t11z3ttl142w/SCACW.zip/file

McGuba
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1162
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by McGuba » Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:17 am

German land transports revised.


I did not want to over-complicate it, but I wanted to add some more historical land transport choices.
Regular infantry and mountain infantry can only have the Blitz. However, most infantry has to march by default in 1941. Only elite panzergrendiers, para and pioneers can have the APCs:
trans1.jpg
trans1.jpg (247.87 KiB) Viewed 5873 times



Bridgers normally have the heavy Merceces L4500 (icon by Asuser / Guille), which is slightly slower than the Blitz (movement = 7 - max speed was 66km/h as opposed to 80), but can be upgraded to SdKfz 7:
trans3.jpg
trans3.jpg (252.52 KiB) Viewed 5873 times


Medium guns and AA, AT can have the Blitz, horse transport (original icon by rezaf) or the SdKfz 11 (icon by me). Early war spoked wheel 7,5cm FK can only have horse transport. Any heavier, starting with the 15cm gun can only have SdKfz 7. From 1943 an Opel Maultier is also available for the medium stuff.
trans4.jpg
trans4.jpg (183.26 KiB) Viewed 5873 times


I did not want to over-complicate it, but I wanted to add some more historical land transport choices.
ImageImage
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=36969

BiteNibbleChomp
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:35 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by BiteNibbleChomp » Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:20 am

Interesting...

Can't wait to see the final product!

- BNC
Creator of American Civil War mod for Strategic Command WWI!
Discuss here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4504986
Download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/tj4t11z3ttl142w/SCACW.zip/file

iceFlame
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:11 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by iceFlame » Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:06 pm

Sounds like you made some good transport choices. :)

Nice to see this mod really coming together!
Image
Go deep here: slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=49469

lsnoop
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD

Post by lsnoop » Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:30 pm

Amazing work.

However, I suggest adding some hidden/bonus stuff and objectives for the sake of replayablity. Obviously, total mods like this should not only introduce the matter of choice and variety of decisions, but also have some extra features (remember the good old Total War).

Otherwise, the plain and simple "attack - capture - defend - repeat n times" would be quite BORING. Especially since the AI sucks at times.

So I suggest adding the folllowing features:

- introduce a possibility of rebels/partisans in areas like USSR or France (of course the player should be informed in advance with information pop-ups - historically accurate - remember rebels from Total War?)
- introduce some non-military units/structures* (e.g. placing a "Gestapo Office" unit into a city generates extra prestige or adds Polizei units every n turns)
- let the player get unique/bonus units or structures for capturing special areas (or occupying them for n turns): a variety of options here : capture & protect Einstein, steal the V2 technology etc etc. Of course everything should be historically accurate.

Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps : Scenario Design”