Friday 2010-06-25 Dev. update and Discussion Thread

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

For the Battle of Britain it wouldn't be too hard. All you would have to do is at the appropriate dates start transfering German units to the East.

From my understanding of events (and I am not an expert and there are gaps in my time line and understanding of the details) Once it was clear that the RAF had not been wiped out, Hitler decided to go on with the "Big Show" which was the invasion of Russia. England could not (at the time) put a substantial force into Western Europe so there was better places to invade.

Cheers!

I'd like to have the option to have both a historical result and also a result based on the way the campaign plays out. In this sense, you wouldn't have to do loads flying as an RAF pilot, but you'd still be under a lot of pressure in order to ensure you don't lose (although historically I hold the belief that an invasion would have been impossible, regardless of whether the RAF was defeated or not).

[csThor]

Quite frankly:

No single pilot could exert as much influence on the flow of battle to change the outcome. Especially not when the most influential factors that affected the outcome have nothing to do with pilot performance.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by csThor

Quite frankly:

No single pilot could exert as much influence on the flow of battle to change the outcome. Especially not when the most influential factors that affected the outcome have nothing to do with pilot performance.

maybe not, but having gamers sit behind a pc monitor and recreating the battle in 2010 is very different from beaming somebody back in time and having some new pilot step into another pilot's place during 1940

there are several ways you could radically affect the outcome of the BoB with the 20/20 hindsight we have now i'd even say that with 100 dedicated flightsimmers working together (which already happens on some large il2 campaign servers we have now), you could tip the balance in germany's favour by for ex:
- knowing where churchill is in the south of england at a given time and day, and carpet bombing that are. his death will affect British moral significantly
- wiping out all British radar installations as a sustained push, blinding British fighter command (which the germans never did and they kept underestimating the importance of British radar up until the end)
- keeping the bomber attacks focused on southern airfields and radar installations, and not switching to civilian targets like london.

that should be enough to tip the balance

so yes, one flightsimmer couldnt make a difference, but 100 organised ones could (combined with being able to task bombers/fighters for their side in the game campaign settings)

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

I'd like to have the option to have both a historical result and also a result based on the way the campaign plays out. In this sense, you wouldn't have to do loads flying as an RAF pilot, but you'd still be under a lot of pressure in order to ensure you don't lose (although historically I hold the belief that an invasion would have been impossible, regardless of whether the RAF was defeated or not).

After gaining air superiority it would have been possible, but I would have isolated them from any support for a year or so to wear them down and drain the public moral. Churchill could have made as many speeches during that time as he liked, but as you can't live on words a lone, he would have been overthrown eventually and the new government would have come to terms with Germany, just like the French did.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by Zorin

After gaining air superiority it would have been possible, but I would have isolated them from any support for a year or so to wear them down and drain the public moral. Churchill could have made as many speeches during that time as he liked, but as you can't live on words a lone, he would have been overthrown eventually and the new government would have come to terms with Germany, just like the French did.

I think differently...they could have forced the country into submission, but an actual invasion verged on impossible. It could never have been achieved via paratroopers, and an invasion via the sea would have been better except this, too, would have been impossible.
I read a book by, i think, Derek Robinson about this which is extremely interesting it certainly brings to mind the flaws in sea-borned invasions.
However, the RAF's defeat would have been demoralising and so this could have led to submission.
Thankfully we'll never know!

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

I think differently...they could have forced the country into submission, but an actual invasion verged on impossible. It could never have been achieved via paratroopers, and an invasion via the sea would have been better except this, too, would have been impossible.
I read a book by, i think, Derek Robinson about this which is extremely interesting it certainly brings to mind the flaws in sea-borned invasions.
However, the RAF's defeat would have been demoralising and so this could have led to submission.
Thankfully we'll never know!

I rely on having no invasion at all. Vast parts of France didn't see a German presence as it was not needed. Vichy managed to secure German interests there just fine. Same would have worked for Great Britain. There were enough possible leaders that would have happily cooperated with the Germans to fight the communists. Invasion would have meant suppression and a constant German force to be stationed in Great Britain. What a waste of man power. Clever politics will win you a war, not brute force. Force your enemy on his knees and then lent him a helping hand, works wonders.

[badfinger]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

I think differently...they could have forced the country into submission, but an actual invasion verged on impossible. It could never have been achieved via paratroopers, and an invasion via the sea would have been better except this, too, would have been impossible.
I read a book by, i think, Derek Robinson about this which is extremely interesting it certainly brings to mind the flaws in sea-borned invasions.
However, the RAF's defeat would have been demoralising and so this could have led to submission.
Thankfully we'll never know!

The book was "Invasion 1940", and Robinson is quite clear in his opinion that the Germans weren't prepared for launch a real invasion, and if they had been, the invasion would have been at night (this was the German plan). Meaning neither the RAF nor the Luftwaffe would have been a factor. However, the RN would have destroyed the invasion fleet, since the German navy consisted of 5 destroyers, and assorted E-boats.

I don't think anything would have lead to an invasion, or submission.

binky9

[robday]

Originally Posted by binky9

Robinson is quite clear in his opinion that the Germans weren't prepared for launch a real invasion

As far as I am aware, the Germans had no purpose-built landing craft, only converted Rhine barges with improvised bow-ramps that would have been towed across the chanel by tugs and other ships! In anything but the most benign of weather this would have been hazardous to say the least! If the Royal Navy had got in amongst this lot I believe carnage would have been the result.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by robday

As far as I am aware, the Germans had no purpose-built landing craft, only converted Rhine barges with improvised bow-ramps that would have been towed across the chanel by tugs and other ships! In anything but the most benign of weather this would have been hazardous to say the least! If the Royal Navy had got in amongst this lot I believe carnage would have been the result.

Why do you lot actually believe they would have launched an invasion? It was part of the act to convince the British that an invasion was planned. There have been uncounted numbers of made-up plans, operations and of course you needed to convince the enemy by throwing them a bone or two.

If Hitler really would have wanted to invade Great Britain, he would have done, mad as he was. But that was never his plan, he hoped for the British to settle on a surrender, just like France.

He switched from bombing airfields and such to terror bombing and the lot to get results. He had a master plan and that did not include Britain be that stubborn to give in. He could have easily continued bombing airfields and leveling every airfield in the south of England to the ground, but it didn't produce the results he was after.

Terror bombing and the dawn of an upcoming invasion were the means he thought good enough to brake the British moral and force Churchill into an agreement. Though as we know, that never happened and Hitler turned towards Russia, leaving Britain behind. He must have had great faith, due to the very successful early u-boat campaign, that they would starve sooner or later anyway.

And up till 1942 there was little coming out of Britain to concern him. Occasional raids and all that but no major effort, expect the shot in the foot called Dieppe Raid, but that was it. Only as the 1000 bomber raids started, he must have regretted not putting Britain under heavier pressure and postponing Barbarossa.

[SlipBall]

I had thought that the first bombing of civilians was an accident. Then the ones that followed, were revenge raids.