More What Ifs

[unmerged(598)]

A couple more, all of which I have no idea what might happen, so I'm looking forward to you all giving your opinion:

[1] Moscow 1941
It's a well worn question, what would happen if Germany had stuck to the plan and driven on Moscow at their first opportunity. So, arriving sometime in the outskirts early August 1941, could the Wehrmacht take Moscow?

What would the German assault look like, similar to Stalingrad or something different? Would the Germans attempt to encircle Moscow first, then strike into the city, or drive straight through.

Finally, can they take the city?

[2] Greece 1943
After Sicily, the natural next step appears to be Italy. Britain engaged in a deception plan before Sicily, leading the Germans to believe that Greece, not Sicily was the next target. What if they decided to hit Greece and not the Italian mainland?

Would Italy have still exited the Axis, and what would the Greek front look like? A similar stalemate, or more chance to outmaneuver than Italy. Pushing through Bulgaria and Rumania perhaps, to knock them out of the war?

Another side affect of the Italian plan, was that the US and UK shut Russia out of post war Italy, setting a precedent that the liberators had post war control, giving Stalin ammunition for Yalta. With a possible Western capture of the Balkans, how would the post war world look? Perhaps Italy partitioned in a similar vein to Germany? The Cold War frontline in the Balkans rather than the Fulda gap?

Finally, would this landing have been a disaster, or could it have achieved something, an early second front which really aided the Soviets. I would imagine the Germans would defend Ploesti with everything they had, weakening the Eastern Front? Would this have an impact on Normandy, greater than the rather wasteful and low impact Italian campaign.

[3] Norway 1940
The debacle which brought down Chamberlin in 1940 might have been different had the allies stuck to the original plan. Seizing Narvik, and mining Norwegian waters in early 1940, before the German invasion.

Assuming the allies get there first, and "persuade" the Norwegians to accept allied occupation, how long does it last? Does Germany delay the assault on France until Norway is captured? How long does it last?

Finally, what impact does this have on the allied cause? Would America look favorably on Britain still, or does this action lower the morality of the war to a European squabble in the US Congress?

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by sean9898
A couple more, all of which I have no idea what might happen, so I'm looking forward to you all giving your opinion:

[1] Moscow 1941
It's a well worn question, what would happen if Germany had stuck to the plan and driven on Moscow at their first opportunity. So, arriving sometime in the outskirts early August 1941, could the Wehrmacht take Moscow?

What would the German assault look like, similar to Stalingrad or something different? Would the Germans attempt to encircle Moscow first, then strike into the city, or drive straight through.

Finally, can they take the city?

Guderians drive south with 2nd Panzer Group closed the Kiev pocket and ensured the capture of almost a million Soviet soldiers. Without the diversion those forces could have menaced the German southern flank. But that's an entirely different "what if?

I believe that the Germans could have captured Moscow, if they had stuck to the initial plan. But as the fighting before Smolensk showed, it would have been a very bloody battle indeed.

When the Germans tried to capture Moscow during Operation Typhoon the plan was a double envelopment of the city, with Guderians renamed 2nd Panzer Army striking deep from the south. An envelopment of the city would have meant an entirely different fight than Stalingrad, where the defenders managed to hold on because supplies and reinforcements could be shipped across the Volga. So IMHO the Germans could take Moscow quite easily if they managed to envelop it. And an envelopment could probably have happened if the Germans had struck early.

But would the fall of Moscow mean the fall of the Soviet government? I got no idea, but I am convinced, that it would mean the fall of Leningrad and the destruction of most Soviet forces facing the German Army Group North. A quick look on a map will show, that Moscos is a major railroad-center, and that most railroads going north pass through Moscow. The capture of Moscow would effectively leave all Soviet forces north of Moscow in an extremely terrible logistic situation, since supply and reinforcements would depend on a single railroad line. Under such circumstances they could not have launched the counteroffensive that stopped the Germans before Leningrad, and the city itself could probably not have been supplied across Lake Ladoga.

With the 3 most important Soviet cities: Kiev, Moscow and Leningrad in German control, Soviet resistance might have ceased. Who knows? =

[2] Greece 1943
After Sicily, the natural next step appears to be Italy. Britain engaged in a deception plan before Sicily, leading the Germans to believe that Greece, not Sicily was the next target. What if they decided to hit Greece and not the Italian mainland?

An Allied landing in Greece was highly unlikely since Greece was outside Allied fightercover. And had the Allies landed, the effect would probably have been very small besides the liberation of Greece. From Greece it is a very long way to Berlin, and the road would probably be blocked by Soviet forces, that have penetrated faster into the Balkans because of the unexpected Allied help.

[3] Norway 1940
The debacle which brought down Chamberlin in 1940 might have been different had the allies stuck to the original plan. Seizing Narvik, and mining Norwegian waters in early 1940, before the German invasion.

Assuming the allies get there first, and "persuade" the Norwegians to accept allied occupation, how long does it last? Does Germany delay the assault on France until Norway is captured? How long does it last?

Finally, what impact does this have on the allied cause? Would America look favorably on Britain still, or does this action lower the morality of the war to a European squabble in the US Congress?

There is no reason why the Germans should delay the attack on France. There was no love lost between the USA and the British Empire when the war started. I doubt very much, that the USA would have looked with kind eyes on a British/French occupation of Norway.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(4876)]

t's a well worn question, what would happen if Germany had stuck to the plan and driven on Moscow at their first opportunity. So, arriving sometime in the outskirts early August 1941, could the Wehrmacht take Moscow?

Was taking Moscow part of the German plan? From what I've read, Army Group Central had no plan to take Moscow early in the war; it was only later on that they established that as an objective.

Or maybye, they could have invaded Russia earlier in the year, say March instead of June. That would mean 3 more months for the Germans to take Moscow. That is very fav. to the Germans, and could have been done without Yugoslavia, Greece, and Crete, possibly.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Calvin


Was taking Moscow part of the German plan? From what I've read, Army Group Central had no plan to take Moscow early in the war; it was only later on that they established that as an objective.

Or maybye, they could have invaded Russia earlier in the year, say March instead of June. That would mean 3 more months for the Germans to take Moscow. That is very fav. to the Germans, and could have been done without Yugoslavia, Greece, and Crete, possibly.

Here's the relevant quote from Fuehrer Directive No. 21: Operation Barbarossa:

III. Conduct of Operations

A. Army (in accordance with plans submitted to me)!

"In the theater of operations, which is divided by the Pripet Marshes into a Southern and a Northern sector, the main weight of attack will be delivered in the Northern area. Two Army Groups will be employed here.

The more southerly of these two Army Groups (in the center of the whole front) will have the task of advancing with powerful armored and motorized formations from the area about and north of Warsaw, and routing the enemy forces in White Russia. This will make it possible for strong mobile forces to advance northwards and, in conjunction with the Northern Army Group operating out of East Prussia in the general direction of Leningrad, to destroy the enemy forces operating in the Baltic area. Only after the fulfilment of this first essential task, which must include the occupation of Leningrad and Kronstadt, will the attack be continued with the intention of occupying Moscow, an important center of communications and of the armaments industry.

Only a surprisingly rapid collapse of Russian resistance could justify the simultaneous pursuit of both objectives."

The direction of Army Group Center and especially its two(?) Panzer Groups caused a lot of controversy in the German high command during the initial stages of Barbarossa, since the plan (as you can see) was extremely vague about the strategic axis.

I doubt the Germans could have invaded in March, and someone somewhere claimed in quite a convincing argument, that a Barbarossa variant without the Balkan attack would not necessarily have placed the Germans in a better situation. I have forgotten his point though.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Moscow:

From my wargaming experience:

I've played maybe 15 FITE games. For those who don't know, that's the Europa East Front game, an operationnal, div/reg/bat, 16 miles to the hex, 2-week turns system, 30+ unit types, 30+ terrain types. Good unit/terrain interaction rules, reasonnable armor effects rules (also interact with terrain), detailed air rules (1 unit=@30-50 planes), basic supply rules (limited overland range to a railhead or slowly die in 4-6 turns). play sequence is move/fight/mot exploit, high-odds overruns allowed during both mvt phases.
The OB's are very accurate (if often revised as new information becomes available...)
FITE's map goes from Murmansk to Crimea and from Warsaw to the Urals (with extension modules)

The results you get from this game seem pretty accurate until late 1942 (after that, since the German players usually don't make the same kind of mistakes the real Germans made, realism is a bit harder to evaluate).

That is, whatever the map looks like (ie, where the front lies and what's in the deadpile), it's usually credible when compared to the historical results.

Well, in that game it's almost impossible for the Germans to take Moscow in 1941, and that's consistent with everything I've read on the subject.

There are several reasons for this

The first is supply. There's no way, however successful you are in battle, you're going to supply more than a raid on Moscow in the summer. You need those railroad lines to bring up meaningful supplies and converting them from Russian to European standard gauge takes time.

Then, assuming you reach Moscow in early August (quite a feat in itself), it will be with Panzers. You'll have pretty little infantry, artillery, engineers, etc...
Panzers attacking a major city alone (or almost alone) are easy to stop.
You won't have had the time to build lots of airfields close to the front so the Soviets are going to have air superiority because you won't have much fighter cover - it doesn't help either.
So even if you get there, you won't be able to do much.

Finally, getting there that fast requires a LOT of the available Panzers, concentrated on a narrow axis. That leaves most of the rest of the front quite bereft of armored support, and that's a really bad idea, because the Soviets DO have armor of their own. Even though it's much less flexible, powerful, etc... than the Panzers, it'll just make minced meat of unsupported German infantry.

Say you use the three Northern Panzer groups for the drive on Moscow, neglecting Leningrad.

Army Group South will push the Soviets, but STAVKA will be able to both conduct a fighting withdrawal and draw units from this sector.

Not really threatening Leningrad will give the Soviets there some breathing space they will use to reinforce Moscow's northern flank in the Valdai hills, meaning you're going to have to be really creative with the 4th Panzer group.

Worst, the rail lines in the Baltic states being standard European gauge, they're usually the primary German supply line north of the Pripet in July-August. Leaving that flank (relatively) open, you run the risk of devastating (though admittedly quite suicidal) Soviet armored raids (remember the lessened pressure on the Kiev Special Military District that has all those nice, fat tank divs?).

So odds are you're going to have to divert 4th Panzer group to cover your northern flank anyway.
Plus you've wasted an opportunity to quickly gain ground up there.

Finally, pushing towards Moscow that fast means you'll have bypassed a lot of Soviet units. Your armor can afford to do this, but your infantry can't. They'll have to do at least SOME cleanup before they can arrive for the final assault.

So, IMHO, an all-out drive on Moscow in 1941 is a very bad idea.

I once played OKH in a FITE game where the Soviet team turned out to be very poor. Actually, it was a return game: they'd challenged my gaming group and first played as the Germans. We stopped them in front of the Riga-Minsk-Kiev line and started a general counteroffensive in September, when we stopped the game and offered to show them how it was done.

That was the most successful German campaign I've ever seen. We managed to secure Leningrad by late August and started to drive on Moscow from three directions in September - the earliest possible date, since as I said above there's no way you'll have the required infantry and supplies before that date.
We never stopped attacking throughout the winter, and when we had to stop the game in March, 1942, the encirclement had just been completed while infantry assaults had managed to secure just 60% of the city itself.

And that was pitting grognard Germans against rookie Soviets.

So taking Moscow in September? in Hitler's dreams, maybe, but not in Russia in 1941.

I know I'm going to take flak because I draw conclusions from a game.
Again, based on all I've read, I consider this one a valid tool to study the Barbarossa campaign at the strategic level.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Sir Enaique, it sounds like more of a simulation than a game, and many militaries conduct simulations as part of their training, so it may be relevant.

I think it may be a toss up, either the Germans taking the city, or being repulsed (not exactly my most profound statement on this board) but the outcome would surely depend on the Russian response as much as the German plan. I think that many what-ifs fail because they pay no heed to the opposition, just assume that if one side changes a mistake then history will be reversed. I am curious as to what other's opinions are, I know the last couple of days has seen little posting outside of the tragedy in the US, but I'm sure others will weigh in.

Emperor, regarding Norway, do you propose that Germany does nothing and continues the invasion of France, or that they at least make an attempt on Norway first?

Regarding Greece, didn't Churchill want to mount an invasion. I know he loved distracting side shows, and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a landing may have been attempted. With the limited assets available to the Med front I can't see anything being achieved, but if more forces were involved, there is the potential to exploit an early second front. If nothing else, it might result in the detachment of German forces from the East. If there is a way to successfully get to Rumania in 1943 or 1944 then this would definately have a major impact on the war.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by sean9898
[3] Norway 1940
The debacle which brought down Chamberlin in 1940 might have been different had the allies stuck to the original plan. Seizing Narvik, and mining Norwegian waters in early 1940, before the German invasion.

Assuming the allies get there first, and "persuade" the Norwegians to accept allied occupation, how long does it last? Does Germany delay the assault on France until Norway is captured? How long does it last?

Finally, what impact does this have on the allied cause? Would America look favorably on Britain still, or does this action lower the morality of the war to a European squabble in the US Congress?

My guess is, with hindsight about the outcome in France, it would actually have helped the Germans. They didn't need Norway before winter (in summer, Swedish ore could be shipped through the Baltic), so they could afford to wait a little.

Norway was hard on the Kriegsmarine. Beyond the sunk ships, many others were damaged and were unavailable during the Battle of Britain. Had all those ships been available after the Fall of France, it would have put additional pressure on the Royal Navy at a time when Britain was threatened with invasion.

With German troops in the channel ports and additional ships at Bremmerhaven, the RN's options in the second half of 1940 would have been much more limited than in April, so the Germans would have had an easier time at invading Norway after France fell.

And Allied troops up there would have been sitting ducks, evacuating in July being much more complicated than in May, assuming the French hadn't fought the British up there after Mers-el-Kebir!

Regarding US reaction to Allied occupation, I guess it would have depended on the Norwegians' reaction.

After all, Britain occupied Iceland without raising too many eyebrows...

 

[unmerged(4876)]

whoops, guess I had a wrong source about Moscow.

Anyway, about Iceland, they declared independence, and the king of Denmark sent them a "good luck" telegram. Probably the only time in history that a country has congratulated a section of the country that broke off

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Reply to Sire Enaique

Moscow:

(...)

I know I'm going to take flak because I draw conclusions from a game.
Again, based on all I've read, I consider this one a valid tool to study the Barbarossa campaign at the strategic level.

I never played any FITE Europa East Front games, but the war on the eastern front is definitely my favourite war-game theatre. I played endless sessions of Gary Grigsby’s War in Russia (also called Second Front) on both Amiga and PC and even made my own scenarios with variants on Barbarossa (concentrating armour in the north or south and going for Moscow or the Ukraine). The last couple of years I mostly played The Operational Art of War, were at least 3 different Barbarossa scenarios are available in various variants. In my experience they – and maybe FITE – all suffer from the same flaw: Since maximum movement allowance is fixed at a reasonable average value, Barbarossa games fail to simulate the extremely fast initial German advance to Minsk, while allowing to much movement later on in the game – especially for the Soviets. Most games also try to simulate Soviet recovery by letting units start in a low supply or low readiness situation, that they recover from following the "normal" rules. IMHO that means the games are unable to simulate the very special situation during Barbarossa. That is especially true for games that try to simulate the entire war 1941-45 as War in Russia, and (I suspect) FITE.

After the capture of Smolensk the Germans could have stopped to rest and refit their armoured spearheads and allow the infantry to follow up, instead of diverting armour to the south. By late August they could have continued their advance to Moscow. As I mentioned earlier, it would probably have meant that Southwestern Front in Kiev survived, and would have been able to menace the flanks of either Army Group Center or South. But given the Soviet inability to conduct large-scale counterattacks at the time, the threat might not have been that big.

After Warsaw Hitler explicitly forbid panzers to enter cities. They were to be used to encircle cities, as it happened at Minsk, Smolensk and Kiev. Stalingrad was an exception since the Volga made an encirclement next to impossible, and the geography of the city almost begged for a frontal assault. Moscow would have been taken (as it was planned in Operation Typhoon) by a two-pincered armoured attack to encircle the city, and a follow-up attack into the city by infantry formations – motorised or foot.

I agree that the railway lines were of the utmost importance, but I am convinced, that the Germans would have been able to change the gauge on the Minsk-Smolensk-Moscow axis fast enough to duplicate the advance of their army, if they put all their effort into it.

Regards,

EoE

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by sean9898

I think it may be a toss up, either the Germans taking the city, or being repulsed (not exactly my most profound statement on this board) but the outcome would surely depend on the Russian response as much as the German plan. I think that many what-ifs fail because they pay no heed to the opposition, just assume that if one side changes a mistake then history will be reversed.

Agreed. Actually "What If's" are a waste of time - but it's a fun waste

Emperor, regarding Norway, do you propose that Germany does nothing and continues the invasion of France, or that they at least make an attempt on Norway first?

Sure do. Norway was semi-important for the German war industry, but it had no strategic connection the the battle for France.

Regarding Greece, any invasion would probably only have been a distraction since the forces involved would have been relatively small IMHO.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Minsk always gripes German players. Well, the ones who feel Germany should have won in 1941 if only the Germans had been less stupid, anyway. But it's only a detail, really: even if you have the MF, you won't take Minsk that fast because the Soviet player is going to put some units between your forces and the city. The only way history in this case can be made to repeat itself is by deliberately and specifically engineering it into the system. And if you start down that road, why not also ensuring the Germans can take Moscow? we're not talking about a simulation anymore at that point...

Now I AM utterly convinced that the historical Soviets could have been defeated by different Germans. But it would have taken VERY different Germans. In one word, the Nazis couldn't do it. The inefficiencies in the German economy and military command structure were in large part due to exacerbated personnal rivalries that were deliberately fostered by Hitler to help secure his control over Germany.

Now it took people like the Nazis to start WWII. So if you want to fight WWII, it's got to be with the Nazis at the helm in Germany and all the problems it creates for the German war machine. QED.

So yes, you start the war in Russia with inadequate RR engineer units, because Hitler loved cars and neglected rail transport (the overall transportation capacity of the ReichsBahn was lower in 1939 than it was in 1914).

And starting in July, 1940, you wish you had more fighters and less bombers, and especially no more of those damn Bf-110 that may be built by the Führer's friend but are crap nevertheless.

You wish somebody'd noticed that the Soviet Union is @ 10 times as large and 4 times as populated as France, so maybe they won't surrender as fast as the frogs did, so maybe it would be a good idea to plan for a longer campaign.

You wish somebody'd thought about paying lip service to Ukrainian and Baltic freedom at least until the Soviet Union had surrendered.

You wish for a lot of things, but can't get them because all this stupid stuff is built into the Nazi system.

Finally, IMHO, the best shot at winning the war for Germany is to plan for an at least two year campaign. Objectives for 1941 are: Leningrad, Smolensk, the Valdai, crossing the Dnepr and killing or capturing as many Ivans as possible. Don't take chances, don't drive beyond your supply. Steadily push forward and kill sovs, kill sovs, kill more sovs. The Soviet supply of replacements isn't inexhaustible. By 1945, they were at the end of it. Keep your eyes on emptying it faster, and minimizing your own losses. Especially, fight them on your own ground. Your best advantage lies in your Panzers. So fight around cities, not in them. Be patient, you'll get them eventually.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Sire Enaique
Minsk always gripes German players. Well, the ones who feel Germany should have won in 1941 if only the Germans had been less stupid, anyway. But it's only a detail, really: even if you have the MF, you won't take Minsk that fast because the Soviet player is going to put some units between your forces and the city. The only way history in this case can be made to repeat itself is by deliberately and specifically engineering it into the system. And if you start down that road, why not also ensuring the Germans can take Moscow? we're not talking about a simulation anymore at that point...

Right, we're talking about history, where the Germans managed to get to Minsk extremely fast. If you want to talk games, how about this one: Barbarossa games should start after the fall of Minsk to simulate the initial Soviet actions almost exclusively layed out by prewar plans. THEN the human Soviet commander could take over and save the Rodina.

Now I AM utterly convinced that the historical Soviets could have been defeated by different Germans. But it would have taken VERY different Germans. In one word, the Nazis couldn't do it. The inefficiencies in the German economy and military command structure were in large part due to exacerbated personnal rivalries that were deliberately fostered by Hitler to help secure his control over Germany.

Now it took people like the Nazis to start WWII. So if you want to fight WWII, it's got to be with the Nazis at the helm in Germany and all the problems it creates for the German war machine.

Agreed, what you describe here is the problem with each and every "What if?" - including this one. But they are still fun, right?

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
Agreed, what you describe here is the problem with each and every "What if?" - including this one. But they are still fun, right?
EoE

No, not all what ifs are like that.

For instance, Hitler could have taken a liking to jets very early on, or Guderian could have decided that going after Moscow instead of Kiev was a good idea, or the staff plane didn't crash in Holland and the Germans don't change the original Fall Gelb plan, or the Generals manage to kill Hitler in 1944, or anybody who wasn't is killed or anybody who was isn't, captured/not captured also works well: what if O'Connor hadn't been captured in 1941? or Rommel got unlucky? or German U-boot meets Prince of Wales conveying Churchill to the US, or Poles fail to send the Enigma machine to Britain, etc... Those are all plausible what-ifs.

Not plausible are Ukrainian puppet state or sensible plan for Barbarossa or Germans use tabun (strange that that last one almost never gets mentionned, though), etc...

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Sire Enaique


No, not all what ifs are like that.

For instance, Hitler could have taken a liking to jets very early on, or Guderian could have decided that going after Moscow instead of Kiev was a good idea, or the staff plane didn't crash in Holland and the Germans don't change the original Fall Gelb plan, or the Generals manage to kill Hitler in 1944, or anybody who wasn't is killed or anybody who was isn't, captured/not captured also works well: what if O'Connor hadn't been captured in 1941? or Rommel got unlucky? or German U-boot meets Prince of Wales conveying Churchill to the US, or Poles fail to send the Enigma machine to Britain, etc... Those are all plausible what-ifs.

Not plausible are Ukrainian puppet state or sensible plan for Barbarossa or Germans use tabun (strange that that last one almost never gets mentionned, though), etc...

Hm... that's highly subjective, don't you think? While I agree, that there are plausible and non-plausible "What If's?", the decision on what's plausible and what's not constitutes a "What If" in itself, thus engulfing the whole exercise further into that realm of academic brain-petting that's fun but pretty pointless.

BTW: Guderian thought going after Kiev instead of Moscow was an extremely bad idea. But it wasn't up to him to decide.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(5120)]

For me, it goes that way:

- If something happened by chance, then something else might well have happened. Hitler's surviving the conspirators bomb in 1944 is a case in point. The bomb did explode next to him. He might well have been killed.

- If for something to happen would have taken a decision by a leader going strongly against that leader's character, I'm not saying that that something was impossible, but you'd better come up with a very convincing scenario!

Sure, what if discussions are pointless. so what? aren't games, too?

 

[Ebusitanus]

15 times playing FITE?????...You were so lucky...I have almost all of the Europa colection but had seldom a chance to play it. It so hard to find good teams ready to sacrifice weekend with no end and the space needed for it...Times have also changed..boardgames, as much as I love them (and keep on buying them ) their time is over. PC is king. BTW, does the Europa forum still work?

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Where there's a will, there's a way, buddy!

(btw, there's one SE game (played to NovI, 44) included in the count)

If you want more players, recruit them! maybe 1/3 of those games were demo games played at conventions. It's easy to get table space at gaming events when you offer to show such a big, impressive game.

As to the Europa Association, dunno. I let most of my links with the Hobby fade away when I started to work.

 

[unmerged(4745)]

Norway 1940

Due to lack of German naval resources the most possible is that Weserübung never have been done if the Brits have been in Norway early 1940 or late 1939.

The Norway campaign exposed almost all German large and medium naval ships, expept for Schleswig-Holstein and Braunschweig. And already the losses of cruisers and destroyer in the real campaign was lethal to all German naval adventures except for raiding in the Nort Atlantic
or Baltic capaigns.

Imagine Norweigan costal defences at full alert, there have been more dead German seamen and sunken German cruisers in the Norweigian fjords.

But Hitler might have changed target and tried to secure the iron mines in Kiruna and Malmberget instead of capturing Norway, altough the swedish army was in better shape than the Norwegian or the Danish it had not the power to stop a German assault. That have been a gruel capaign ending with destroyed cities and may be 100 k deads.

 

[Ebusitanus]

Originally posted by Sire Enaique
Where there's a will, there's a way, buddy!

(btw, there's one SE game (played to NovI, 44) included in the count)

If you want more players, recruit them! maybe 1/3 of those games were demo games played at conventions. It's easy to get table space at gaming events when you offer to show such a big, impressive game.

As to the Europa Association, dunno. I let most of my links with the Hobby fade away when I started to work.

Ahhh...so you are talking about your far away youth
I thought you were still rolling those dices...That doesn't count then. I still play boardgames (once in a while) with the smaller Europa series.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by Ebusitanus


Ahhh...so you are talking about your far away youth
I thought you were still rolling those dices...That doesn't count then. I still play boardgames (once in a while) with the smaller Europa series.

Tah-tah... last time I played Second Front was 4 months ago.
I'm not calling it "one of the small ones"...