AO1942 and Beyond

[Xenos]

Honestly, attempting and then failing Sealion in 1940 makes even less sense than attempting and winning. If by some act of God the Germans were to transport and supply a whole panzer corps to England and reach London, which is what happen in game, there was no way the English could have resisted. They had very little heavy equipment after Dunkirk and, differently from the Russians, they weren't fighting a war of annihilation. Churchill would have been ousted and the Germans would have proposed relatively lenient peace terms. In the game you cross the channel, land, destroy a million tanks the English should not have, then lose the whole Kriegsmarine and somehow manage to retreat back to France sneaking past the Royal Navy. Doesn't really make any sense, it's like trying to cover a very implausible what-if with a totally absurd what-if.

I dunno, I tend to put a bit more stock into the post war war-games that were held specifically to play out this situation.

Even had the Germans managed to get some forces across the Channel, it would not have been a permanently open supply line for them. Nevermind what Royal Navy ships were just in the immediate vicinity of Britain, there were so many more British Warships out there that could and would make life hell for any German movement within the English Channel.

Indeed, so how did we manage to retreat?

[dalfrede]

Indeed, so how did we manage to retreat?

Feint towards London; reverse direction to the port; sink the local Royal Navy; evacuate to France.
Dunkirk in reverse.

[Xenos]

Indeed, so how did we manage to retreat?

Feint towards London; reverse direction to the port; sink the local Royal Navy; evacuate to France.
Dunkirk in reverse.

At Dunkirk the British had a navy. Here the Germans lost their entire one.

[Snake97644]

Indeed, so how did we manage to retreat?

Feint towards London; reverse direction to the port; sink the local Royal Navy; evacuate to France.
Dunkirk in reverse.

At Dunkirk the British had a navy. Here the Germans lost their entire one.

After the events in the scenarios, I suppose one could argue that the Germans had air superiority. Perhaps that could keep the Royal Navy at bay long enough, but yes it would seem that getting back across would have been even tougher than getting over.

[Patrat]

I prefer the historical route. Changing the course of history should be left to games at the strategic level.

That being said. I think the way the Seelowe scenarios were handled was a master stroke and should be used as a template for future deviations from the historical path. Of course any deviation from the historical path should be optional, just like the Seelowe missions.

[Bee1976]

Some people want the DLC to be MORE historical.
Some people see more historical content as 'been there done that', and they want more fictional stuff.
There are many players who are definitely waiting in the wings for non-Axis campaigns to arrive.

In an ideal world, I think there would be a lot more DLC, and then players have more freedom of choice of 'ohh I want to buy and play X' and also say 'oh, I don't like that content, I'm not gonna buy it'.

Well, easy solution:
Bring em all and more, and i will buy them all and more

I like playing a real long campaign, so for every dlc i restart my core and start with scw to the actual dlc. I cant wait until all dlcs are out and i can play a real real real long campaign for it. I enjoyed playing sealion, but it was short. Im completly ok with dlcs for a complete historical route til '45. But i would love (!!) the same for a fictional campain from scw to 45 or even longer. If you keep that high quality level that all DLCs delivered so far, you can release dozens of dlcs, i will buy them. Same for a possible allied, soviet, africa corps or others.
But pls, if you "go off the rails" make it long real long. Not only those little "what if " snacks like sealion

Btw, i still would love that zombie tank camo :]

[Laedaa]

As for me, it's better to do it by analogy with the original campaign. Go to Stalingrad as the current DLС, and then just export to different DLСs:
1) 1944 East, 1945 East. Historical path.
2) 1944 East alt.path (second campaign to Moscow) + Sea Lion 44. 1945 - landing in America. Alternative way
Likewise, when the AFR and West DLC go:
3) 1943/44 West, 1945 West Historical (and you can somehow interestingly beat what would have happened if the offensive in the Ardennes had been successful)
4) 1944 Far East + Campaign to Moscow from the Caucasus. 1945 - America is the same as in point 2.

All this is a separate DLCs and the players themselves will decide which path they like best:
- play completely historical
- or play an alternative option.

[Snake97644]

As for me, it's better to do it by analogy with the original campaign. Go to Stalingrad as the current DLС, and then just export to different DLСs:
1) 1944 East, 1945 East. Historical path.
2) 1944 East alt.path (second campaign to Moscow) + Sea Lion 44. 1945 - landing in America. Alternative way
Likewise, when the AFR and West DLC go:
3) 1943/44 West, 1945 West Historical (and you can somehow interestingly beat what would have happened if the offensive in the Ardennes had been successful)
4) 1944 Far East + Campaign to Moscow from the Caucasus. 1945 - America is the same as in point 2.

All this is a separate DLCs and the players themselves will decide which path they like best:
- play completely historical
- or play an alternative option.

These all sound good, but I would also welcome a completely different alternative track. Something in Spain, or fighting a defensive war were you could achieve some sembalance of victory ie. crushing the Normandy landings yet still be magically pushed back.

[Kerensky]

As for me, it's better to do it by analogy with the original campaign. Go to Stalingrad as the current DLС, and then just export to different DLСs:
1) 1944 East, 1945 East. Historical path.
2) 1944 East alt.path (second campaign to Moscow) + Sea Lion 44. 1945 - landing in America. Alternative way
Likewise, when the AFR and West DLC go:
3) 1943/44 West, 1945 West Historical (and you can somehow interestingly beat what would have happened if the offensive in the Ardennes had been successful)
4) 1944 Far East + Campaign to Moscow from the Caucasus. 1945 - America is the same as in point 2.

All this is a separate DLCs and the players themselves will decide which path they like best:
- play completely historical
- or play an alternative option.

Imagine how much more complex that campaign plan would look if the 'fictional' alternatives began in 1940.

But you know, having some major history alternative results coming into the picture in Mid War and Late War... is starting to sound and look pretty reasonable to me. It would also finally solve the problem these sorts of games have always had with Late War German campaigns: "I win every battle, but I keep losing this war". A completely independent path to explore winning, without relying on the trope of 'the debriefing says you have to retreat anyways'

Potentially appropriate for a next generation game (Panzer Corps 2 compared to last generation Panzer Corps original) to finally break through this mold?

[Retributarr]

These all sound good, but I would also welcome a completely different alternative track. Something in Spain, or fighting a defensive war were you could achieve some sembalance of victory ie. crushing the Normandy landings yet still be magically pushed back.

The "Normandy-Landings" very-nearly failed for several reasons... it was not a guarantee that the amphibious invasion effort was going to work out!.

1. The good "Weather Window" that the 'Meteorologists' gave Eisenhower... was that for only a short-brief period of time... not a continual period of any meaningful duration. So!... there was very-little time to hit the beaches to accomplish the task at hand.

2. Many of the "Mulbury- Harbours" were dislocated from their moorings so as to render them useless for further off-loading from ships of 'Material and Troops'. Some of these 'Mulbury-Harbours'... were actually 'Wrecked' or 'Destroyed' by the stormy weather so that they were unusable!. So now!...the allies had to make a determined effort to capture another... but "less-capable coastal port" to maintain the momentum of continued offloading. I think that it was called... "St. Malo".

3.The worsening weather conditions hampered the 'Stuka Dive Bombers' and other German Aircraft from inflicting more damage on the 'Invasion-Fleet' than they originally did.

4. I'm quite sure that one entire 'American Infantry Division' landed in or on the wrong beach which in-fact was just pure 'Dumb-Luck'... as they landed where the German Defenses were near non-existent!.
That incident alone really helped in making of securing the 'Normandy Beach-head' a much more successful operation.

5. One would have to check further on this but, I am reasonably sure that some German Armoured Units might have possibly been close enough to severely disrupt the invasion effort... but were diverted for some forgotten reason by myself... and so did not adversely affect the outcome of the landings.

Really!!!... it was nothing short of a 'Miracle' that the Normandy-Landings succeeded at all!!!. The "Allies"... must have been 'On-A-Mission-From-God!!!'.
---------------------------------
To Summarize:
I submit that for an 'A-Historical' submission be included for just this 'Normandie-Invasion'... to include the chance of 'Total-Abject-Failure' for the reasons listed above as also for what-ever else that I failed to include!.

[medkirtys]

I prefer a more historical route. Alternate history often just ends up feeling very unrealistic. However I did like how Sea Lion was handled in the 1940 dlc.

[Retributarr]

I prefer a more historical route. Alternate history often just ends up feeling very unrealistic. However I did like how Sea Lion was handled in the 1940 dlc.

I agree!!!... however!... the 'Ahistorical' request that I submitted would not be included in the Game as it were... 'Chisled in Stone'... like the 10-Commandments, but would be a selectable alternative for those with 'Steel-Stomachs'... so that those few brave hardy souls can test their strength of will with this 'Gut-Wrenching'... test of all tests to see if they can weather the storm. This would not be an alternative option for those 'Weak of Heart' or in other words 'Sissies'.

[Snake97644]

I prefer a more historical route. Alternate history often just ends up feeling very unrealistic. However I did like how Sea Lion was handled in the 1940 dlc.

That is why the hints and comments that Kerensky has made make me optimistic, it does not have to be a 'zero sum' game, no pun intended. For once there can be both options, so long as the demand is there. It sounds like there very well could be both the historical and ahistorical.

[impossible]

those who think Wehrmacht was one step away from the victory are grossly mislead.

exactly. especially that the allies SHOWERED the soviet union with stuff.

from wikipedia:
- 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <<<<) tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans)
- 11,400 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <<<<) aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)
- over 400,000 jeeps and trucks
- 1.75 million tons of food
- provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent (!!!!!!!!!!) of total domestic consumption

in addition
- soviet union had all the resources needed for production
- they had superior manpower
- most of their production capacity was intact, germany managed to occupy shitty belarus, baltics, ukraine and an small part of russia itself and only briefly

germany had ZERO chance to win the war even without declaring war on the usa (which was de facto a belligerent since the launch of the land lease). they didnt have a chance against the soviet union alone propped up with lend lease. you cannot fight the whole world all alone without resources.

[adiekmann]

those who think Wehrmacht was one step away from the victory are grossly mislead.

exactly. especially that the allies SHOWERED the soviet union with stuff.

from wikipedia:
- 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <<<<) tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans)
- 11,400 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <<<<) aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)
- over 400,000 jeeps and trucks
- 1.75 million tons of food
- provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent (!!!!!!!!!!) of total domestic consumption

in addition
- soviet union had all the resources needed for production
- they had superior manpower
- most of their production capacity was intact, germany managed to occupy shitty belarus, baltics, ukraine and an small part of russia itself and only briefly

germany had ZERO chance to win the war even without declaring war on the usa (which was de facto a belligerent since the launch of the land lease). they didnt have a chance against the soviet union alone propped up with lend lease. you cannot fight the whole world all alone without resources.

I believe they could have succeeded if it weren't for the genocidal policies of the Nazis. Invade as liberators, not with all of that Untermenschen BS. That gave the Soviets all the reason to fight so fiercely because it was the only way to survive. I think if they succeeded in capturing Moscow if would not have made any difference because of this issue. It didn't help Napoleon, did it? Look at all of the partisan activity deep behind the front lines. Why was that? Same reason.

[Retributarr]

those who think Wehrmacht was one step away from the victory are grossly mislead.

exactly. especially that the allies SHOWERED the soviet union with stuff.

germany had ZERO chance to win the war even without declaring war on the usa

"Germany had ZERO chance to win the war!":
I wouldn't be so sure of myself to say that... as i wouldn't be so sure to say that 'Napoleone Bonaparte' had ZERO chance to win at 'The Battle of Waterloo!'.

I will at this point not present my 'Argument' with documentation or even with facts and figures... as that would be time intensive to do so... and i have already done that in the past... so here goes... disregard this information as you will!.

Hitlers 'Hermann Goerring' gave the authorization to implement the 'Amerika Bomber' programme. You can check this for yourself through various means, the internet and so on, but!... the easiest way is to go to 'UTUBE'. This 'Amerika-Bomber' was specked out to be able to go to the U.S.A. to drop 'Atomic-Bombs' at first on 'New York and Washington'.

Despite the 'Nay-Sayers' debunking the German efforts to develop a viable 'Nuclear Programme'... they had in-fact before wars-end,... did testing with small scale 'Atomic-Bombs' to gauge their effectiveness and viability. The 'Bombs' were successful working weapons during the tests.

If 'Atomic-Bombs' were successfully dropped on American Cities... very likely the willingness to carry on the war with Germany would change... with some kind of settlement or arrangement.

The 'Russians' at this point would also have to seriously re-evaluate their position with a continuing war with Germany.

The Germans were developing 'Huge' quantities of heavy-water in 'Norway'... as well as in South America where they had constructed a large 'Hydro-Electric-Dam'... which was also producing huge quantities of heavy water for Atomic Bomb development. This Hydro-Electric-Dam was constructed in South America before the war in Europe even began. Just west of 'Bariloche' in Argentina...on an island... a major Atomic Testing Centre was constructed... to hasten the development of the Atomic Bomb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly... had 'Hitler' not immediately have declared war on Russia and also had not declared war on 'The United States'... which was 'Stupid beyond Belief'... but would have had instead waited one more year to much better prepare an invasion of England... it just may have succeded. Many new concepts and ideas for dealing with the British Fleet as well as updated/modernized beachead tools and equipment were in development [Landing Barges, etc.]... to make scaling the beaches a much more certain effort.

By taking this route or course of action instead of the way it was haphazardly followed through with... Germany would or likely could have put their major adversaries in a state of neuro-paralysis.

Never say Never!... 'No-Way...Zero-Chance'... expect the unexpected!... never assume!, it could lead to your doom!.

[VirgilInTheSKY]

those who think Wehrmacht was one step away from the victory are grossly mislead.

exactly. especially that the allies SHOWERED the soviet union with stuff.

from wikipedia:
- 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <<<<) tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans)
- 11,400 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <<<<) aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)
- over 400,000 jeeps and trucks
- 1.75 million tons of food
- provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent (!!!!!!!!!!) of total domestic consumption

in addition
- soviet union had all the resources needed for production
- they had superior manpower
- most of their production capacity was intact, germany managed to occupy shitty belarus, baltics, ukraine and an small part of russia itself and only briefly

germany had ZERO chance to win the war even without declaring war on the usa (which was de facto a belligerent since the launch of the land lease). they didnt have a chance against the soviet union alone propped up with lend lease. you cannot fight the whole world all alone without resources.

And IIRC what the russians received is merely a 2% or 3% of the total lend lease goods the US had sent to all the allied nations, so there is absolutely no way to win such a war for the Nazi Germany. Too large production power difference between the Axis and the Allies.

[George_Parr]

I agree that "X couldn't possibly have happened" is generally not a good argument. Plenty of things that "couldn't have happened" actually did happen during the war. Way too much of this is taking hindsight into account, something that wasn't available to the people of the time. Minute changes could have caused drastically different outcomes, ain all sort of directions. Doesn't mean that many options would have led to German victory, but you can find cases where some sort of success for Germany could have happened. Success doesn't necessarily equal total domination though. They mostly include everything going their way, but then again, mostly everything went their way early on

I don't think waiting with Sea Lion would have been one of those parts though. Waiting generally helps the defender, unless he is busy elsewhere. Germany was not building as many planes as the UK, and their fighters didn't have the range to challenge the air over Britian in the way that was necessary. Britain was also left with very little equipment and a shortage of troops in 1940. Wait a year and they have reformed their units and equiped them with proper material again. And since an invasion is the likely scenario, they also would have swamped all possible destinations with any sort of defensive measurements you can think of. Just like at Kursk, Germany waiting for some time actually helps the enemy.


As for the America Bomber and nuclear bombs,neither were anywhere near being ready. Even large rockets would have been more likely than that. And Germany did not come remotely close to developing any sort of nuclear bombs, big or small. THey did have heavy water from Norway, though much of it get destroyed, and what was left wasn't enough to continue the tests in Germany. There also was no work being done in South America either. All noteworthy German nuclear scientists where in Germany, and they never would have risked moving any of them to South America. Just like they wouldn't have build up any facility in such a remote location, as it could never have been protected from the Allies when it was that far away. This is a highly destructive weapon, and the scientists with the necessary knowedge are extremely rare, you do not risk any of that falling into enemy hands.

[QTMeo]

As for me, it's better to do it by analogy with the original campaign. Go to Stalingrad as the current DLС, and then just export to different DLСs:
1) 1944 East, 1945 East. Historical path.
2) 1944 East alt.path (second campaign to Moscow) + Sea Lion 44. 1945 - landing in America. Alternative way
Likewise, when the AFR and West DLC go:
3) 1943/44 West, 1945 West Historical (and you can somehow interestingly beat what would have happened if the offensive in the Ardennes had been successful)
4) 1944 Far East + Campaign to Moscow from the Caucasus. 1945 - America is the same as in point 2.

All this is a separate DLCs and the players themselves will decide which path they like best:
- play completely historical
- or play an alternative option.

Sounds good . I would like to play the 2 versions: the historical and the non-historical (1945 Berlin and 1945 USA)

[impossible]

those who think Wehrmacht was one step away from the victory are grossly mislead.

exactly. especially that the allies SHOWERED the soviet union with stuff.

from wikipedia:
- 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <<<<) tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans)
- 11,400 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <<<<) aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)
- over 400,000 jeeps and trucks
- 1.75 million tons of food
- provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent (!!!!!!!!!!) of total domestic consumption

in addition
- soviet union had all the resources needed for production
- they had superior manpower
- most of their production capacity was intact, germany managed to occupy shitty belarus, baltics, ukraine and an small part of russia itself and only briefly

germany had ZERO chance to win the war even without declaring war on the usa (which was de facto a belligerent since the launch of the land lease). they didnt have a chance against the soviet union alone propped up with lend lease. you cannot fight the whole world all alone without resources.

And IIRC what the russians received is merely a 2% or 3% of the total lend lease goods the US had sent to all the allied nations, so there is absolutely no way to win such a war for the Nazi Germany. Too large production power difference between the Axis and the Allies.

exactly. there was not even the slightest chance to win. nada. you cannot fight alone without natural resources against the whole world. hell they even had to import more than 30% of their iron ore consumption and their only source of oil was in muntenia.