[WarInEur] Pro-German bias

[Carl Rupp]

An interesting discussion to say the least. I'd offer a few points on 
the alleged pro-German bias.

1. As gamers, and most likely military historians, I like to suggest we 
may all have a desire to see if we can do better than the people who 
commanded the battles in real life. You know, the Monday morning 
quarterbackers. Certainly we all glad the Germans lost, just as we are 
that the North won the American Civil War. Still, trying to see if you 
could have done better than General Lee or Guderian, etc. and changed 
the course of history is a fun thing, at least in fantasy. But that 
doesn't mean a bias.

2. Now maybe the history books have changed since I was a teenager in 
the 70's reading my life away, but does anyone believe that if the 
following mistakes had not been made that the war would have gone very 
differently:
A.The Panzers cleared out Dunkirk rather than the Luftwaffe bombing it.
B. The Luftwaffe was not redirected in the Battle of Britain away from 
the British airfields and at the cities in retaliation for the night 
bombing of Berlin.
C. Weeks were not wasted dickering back and forth in July/August about 
moving south toward Kiev or on to Moscow.
D. Army Gruppe Nord was left to finish off Leningrad in September when 
they were miles away, rather than diverting resources to Moscow.
E. No final push on Moscow in November/December.
F. A logical retreat policy in Russia, rather than hold at all costs.
G. Actually preparing the troops for a Russian winter.
H. Not continually reshaping objectives during the Drive on Stalingrad.
I. Diverting resources to take Malta to secure the supply lines.

And I am sure any number of other smaller German mistakes could be 
cited, such as trying to make the ME262 a fighter bomber!!!

Just my thoughts, which I am sure someone will pillory with a rapacity 
that makes a Viking envious!

Carl

Kent & Sue Haunschild wrote:

> I guess I'm confused. There have been a number of changes to the game 
> since SPI published it.
>
> How is changing the rules so that the Germans don't merely have to 
> capture Warsaw but eliminate 80% of the Polish army evidence of a 
> Pro-German bias?
>
> How is a refusal to play with the 1940 historic rules evidence of a 
> Pro-Axis bias?
>
> How is changing the rules so that Partisans actually cut the rail and 
> therefore block supply (not merely rail movement) evidence of a 
> Pro-German bias?
>
> How is parsing the SB rules to allow bombing of the rail net, and 
> thereby cutting off supply to entire theaters, evidence of a 
> Pro-German bias?
>
> How is modifying the rules regarding chaining of MSU's so that it 
> cannot be done in the Severe Weather area evidence of a Pro-German bias?
>
> How is the introduction of the German Cadre rule so that the Germans 
> are limited to a maximum of 252 divisions evidence of a Pro-German bias?
>
> How is does the introduction of the German Personnel points option 
> which caps total German production evidence of a Pro-German bias?
>
> How is changing the rules so that Allied reinforcements can be placed 
> on dot cities when all other countries are restricted to a using a 
> supply center as their placement hex evidence of a Pro-German bias? 
> (Okay, Italy is an exception and the Soviets have TC's but they need 
> to be placed on or adjacent to a Soviet supply center so it amounts to 
> the same thing).
>
> Need I continue?????
>
> The point is that there has been a lot of tinkering with the game.  
> Most if not all of the tinkering has been done it to weaken the German 
> player.  NOW! LET ME BE REALLY REALLY CLEAR.  I play with all the 
> above rules.  In most cases I think they were good changes.  The 
> German lose the war that's a given.  Winning the game is determined by 
> how badly they lose.  However, the play balance has shifted and it is 
> no longer a close run thing to achieve an Allied victory in 1945.  In 
> fact the German can easily be beaten in 1944.
>
> As many many players have pointed out, the War in the East "is" the 
> war. The rest of it ,despite the Allied propaganda, was a side show.  
> The balance of forces on the German and Allied sides is known with 
> about a 99% confidence level in 1941.  The Soviets more on the 80-90% 
> level so some of their strengths are extrapolations based on the 
> apparent German successes against them.  I would like to play a game 
> that allowed the Germans to go into Russia in 1941 with approximately 
> the same worldwide correlation of forces and I can't.  I'd like a game 
> in which the Germans can actually conduct a Battle of the Bulge type 
> offensive in the West and I can't.
>
> What is really annoying is that whenever I or another points out that 
> the game is not playing out historically and suggests a modification 
> of the rules to allow a more historical outcome we are labeled as 
> panzer pushers. I will gladly play anyone with the "published" SPI 
> rules.  I do resist the idea of incorporating all the KC, LA, etal 
> erratum into the core game and forcing me to play with it.  I'd like 
> all of the departures from the SPI rules to be options and would like 
> some pro-german "options" added for play balance.
>
> Kent
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur