Modern Germany is replaced by WW2 Germany...

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Um, Vendetta, a 128cm gun would leave smoking scraps of tank. If such a monster could be built.

I think you meant a 12.8cm gun.

[Sea Skimmer]

The British WW2 APDS was so inaccurate in firing trials in the field in 1944 Normandy it mostly missed when fired at a stationary captured Panther target. The Germans high caliber guns could penetrate about 200mm of face hardened steel max, slightly more RHA. The 128mm gun's main advantage over the long 88mm was it could do that at any range the crew could see the enemy. Also far more likely to completely destroy vs just penetrate the enemy tank.

Modern 120 sized sabot rounds are around x4 times more penetrating in steel, and dramatically better against composite armor schemes. They would pass clear through the Maus from any angle, barring perhaps getting stuck shattering the engine block. The Maus frontal armor isn't actually much better then what the M60 tank mounted, much of its weight is in really thick side armor. Modern MBTs avoid doing that.

Basically modern automcannon could deal with all the medium tanks of WW2 and some of the heavy ones, while no Nazi gun would be effective against the front of a modern tank short the bigger field pieces. On the other hand all German guns from 75mm and up would be able to penetrate the sides of modern tanks at 1km, but not at sharp angles, depending on the details. So German tanks on the defensive would have some chance of destroying serious numbers of modern vehicles in flanking ambushes, but since modern stuff has FLIR and better cross country mobility it's going to go the other way a lot more often.

[Batman]

It probably wouldn't be fun to be in a tank taking hits from a 128cm gun, but the tank wouldn't be destroyed (a hit to the gun barrel might render it inoperable, but that doesn't destroy the tank.

The tank would cease to exist. Rapidly expanding cloud of really tiny tank fragments (if that). Luckily for the modern tank, not even the Nazis were insane enough to put 1.28m calibre guns on their tanks

[Archinist]

It probably wouldn't be fun to be in a tank taking hits from a 128cm gun, but the tank wouldn't be destroyed (a hit to the gun barrel might render it inoperable, but that doesn't destroy the tank.

The tank would cease to exist. Rapidly expanding cloud of really tiny tank fragments (if that). Luckily for the modern tank, not even the Nazis were insane enough to put 1.28m calibre guns on their tanks

Even a very large gun would have trouble hitting a modern tank provided reasonable circumstances.

[bilateralrope]

And Archinist, we're not trying to discourage you from posting (well some of us aren't anyways), all we're asking is that you at least do a little research and use some common sense when coming up with scenarios rather than making them so incredibly lopsided than one side literally has to be brain dead for the other to remotely stand a chance. Yes, yes, this is all fictional "what ifs" involving imaginary scenarios, but it's more interesting when one side doesn't have to rely on the other's stupidity in order to win. Or if you want the scenarios to be nonsensical, at least tell us as much from the start.

Or you can keeping ignore our advice, in which case "Dumber than a Parrot" will soon end up being ur nickname... which is actually kind of nice compared to some names we've come up with in the past, now that I think of it.

I'm getting a different impression of Archinist when I compare him to the actions of a tabletop RPG GM. He seems to be making his scenarios with a specific idea about how he wants them to play out, then pulling out the stupidity to try and prevent it going in a different direction. For example, a GM who throws his players something like the trolley problem and adjusts it to prevent options other than "pull lever" or "don't pull lever". Sometimes they adjust it before the players see it because they want to close off options they know the players have, other times they close them off after players suggest these other options. Either way players generally don't like it when they realise that the GM is doing that.

While when other people make RARs, they do it because they don't know what the outcome will be. So they let the scenario develop in whatever direction it goes, because part of the fun is seeing what happens. Usually the only additions are clarifying things that were ambiguous in the opening post. Maybe they change it when they realise that the scenario as they first presented it is too lopsided to be interesting.

So my suggestion to Archinist: Don't write any part of the scenario specifically to restrict how it plays out. The more freedom the scenario has, the more likely it is to become something interesting.

[Highlord Laan]

France would immediately employ nuclear weapons anyway. WW2 Germany has far too much manpower for them to stop. 140 divisions were used to invade France in 1940. Even if modern French troops could fight 10:1 odds, which is questionable, they would still loose to that. They don't have enough ammunition for the fight. Some of the other Euro forces would be boardline useless they've shrunk so small. Nukes would be used at once to vaporize major German concentrations, bomber airfields and and no doubt where ever the French think Hitler is. Then conventional bombing can wreck the Rhine bridges and every power plant in Germany and NATO can plot what to do next.

And before then Russia says "О, черт НЕТ!" en masse and stuffs if's collective foot so far up neo-nazi Germany's asshole that it will forever have seepage issues afterwards. And there would be none of this "Stop at Berlin" bullshit, either. The Whermacht thought the eastern front was bad last time? Holy shit, that won't even register compared to the brutal fucking Mother Russia would give them in a rematch. The veterans of WWII would probably start frothing cosmoline at the mouth and dig up some mosins from whichever wheat field is nearby.

[Adam Reynolds]

And Archinist, we're not trying to discourage you from posting (well some of us aren't anyways), all we're asking is that you at least do a little research and use some common sense when coming up with scenarios rather than making them so incredibly lopsided than one side literally has to be brain dead for the other to remotely stand a chance. Yes, yes, this is all fictional "what ifs" involving imaginary scenarios, but it's more interesting when one side doesn't have to rely on the other's stupidity in order to win. Or if you want the scenarios to be nonsensical, at least tell us as much from the start.

Or you can keeping ignore our advice, in which case "Dumber than a Parrot" will soon end up being ur nickname... which is actually kind of nice compared to some names we've come up with in the past, now that I think of it.

I'm getting a different impression of Archinist when I compare him to the actions of a tabletop RPG GM. He seems to be making his scenarios with a specific idea about how he wants them to play out, then pulling out the stupidity to try and prevent it going in a different direction. For example, a GM who throws his players something like the trolley problem and adjusts it to prevent options other than "pull lever" or "don't pull lever". Sometimes they adjust it before the players see it because they want to close off options they know the players have, other times they close them off after players suggest these other options. Either way players generally don't like it when they realise that the GM is doing that.

While when other people make RARs, they do it because they don't know what the outcome will be. So they let the scenario develop in whatever direction it goes, because part of the fun is seeing what happens. Usually the only additions are clarifying things that were ambiguous in the opening post. Maybe they change it when they realise that the scenario as they first presented it is too lopsided to be interesting.

So my suggestion to Archinist: Don't write any part of the scenario specifically to restrict how it plays out. The more freedom the scenario has, the more likely it is to become something interesting.

On that note, I have never understood why people find this style of playing superior to that degree. My current preference is heavily geared towards playing to find out what happens. It really is more interesting for the GM as well, as both sides get to experience a story neither would have come up with on their own. Though the counter argument that it can lead to plot holes has some merit, that is just a reason to keep track of what has already occurred rather than to completely plan for the future and force those plans to go through.

Recently I even had a mystery play out in this fashion, with a handful of potential suspects, and the actual killer was only decided when a PC developed a theory that explained all of the evidence up to that point. The key to avoiding plot holes is to keep track of every major clue, and allow whatever theory fits everything to be the truth. I also allowed clues to be discredited as well, though the person that discovered the clue is the one with veto power.

The same is true with fiction writing for that matter. When you write a story it is more interesting to just write it than it is to plan everything out in advance. You are going to have to rewrite things a few times anyway, so why not enjoy the first draft?

I understand having a general plan, but railroading in an RPG or rigid outlining in writing has always struck me as stupid. Characters don't always agree with you, and they should have the agency to change the course of events.

[RogueIce]

It's doubtful the Germans would actually invade as that they would very quickly notice the sudden massive technological gap that they were facing. Even Hitler would quickly see the need to pause and assess the situation. The real question is whether or not the rest of the world would be able to de-Nazify Germany without having to invade, not whether or Nazi Germany will conquer Europe. Do you think that enough pressure could be brought to bear on Germany to get rid of Hitler and other Nazi officals without having to attack, or will Germany have to be conquered again?

Let's just add a wrinkle to this and say that it's Nazi Germany the day after Hitler takes power, or at the latest a couple days before he actually issues any orders or directives that qualify as Crimes Against Humanity. And thanks to the magic of RAR, the entire world leadership knows without any question that this Hitler has yet to actually commit said CAHs.

Now what? Do they decide that the historical record is enough to convict anyway? Or do they find themselves in a unique and unprecedented situation of knowing he was planning these crimes, and an alternate future version of him did commit these crimes, but the actual Hitler they have in front of them has not, in fact, committed these crimes.

And the reason I say "at least a couple days" before issuing the orders or whatever, is because I figure that gives 2016!Hitler time enough to read the situation he's in, and at the very least delay implementing those ideas until he can actually figure out what's going on. So he's unlikely to actually order the Final Solution or any of its precursors at any point in the near future given the new and strange world he finds himself in.

[Borgholio]

It would be an interesting philosophical question to be sure, but legally it's fairly cut and dry. Did he commit any crimes against humanity yet? Yes or no. If no, then he cannot legally be punished for something he didn't do.

[Elheru Aran]

It would be an interesting philosophical question to be sure, but legally it's fairly cut and dry. Did he commit any crimes against humanity yet? Yes or no. If no, then he cannot legally be punished for something he didn't do.

Regardless of what he has or has not done, the views and attitudes that he and the Nazi Party hold would be an abomination to modern society, to the point that considerable pressure would be applied in order to at the very minimum to compel them to publicly renounce these views and attitudes. I would expect a few large purchases of relevant volumes of WWII and German history to be quickly made and distributed around Germany in short order with a view to encouraging the German people to turn against the Nazi movement.

[The_Saint]

To take all this in another direction: I can only imagine the suspicious looks that would be happening across the East China Sea as everyone in the pacific holds their breath waiting for 1940 Japan to suddenly appear. If Israel and Russia would hypothetically chuck a fit at 1940 Germany appearing I can only imagine the conniptions China would be having over the potential of a 1940 Japan returned...

[Simon_Jester]

At least it'd be easy to bludgeon them into grudging submission...

Now I'm picturing the Chinese ambassador in Washington sarcastically saying "oh, right, using nuclear attacks to make Japan stop going full berserker is fine when YOU do it, buuuut..."

...

In regards to the "1933 Hitler" scenario, the Nazi Party was already supported by several thuggish paramilitary organizations that had been committing human rights abuses before they even came into power. One of the reasons Hitler was made Chancellor was that the conservative factions in the Weimar Republic finally decided they'd rather have him (and his thugs) inside their tent throwing trouble outward than having them outside the tent throwing it inward.

[bilateralrope]

On that note, I have never understood why people find this style of playing superior to that degree. My current preference is heavily geared towards playing to find out what happens. It really is more interesting for the GM as well, as both sides get to experience a story neither would have come up with on their own. Though the counter argument that it can lead to plot holes has some merit, that is just a reason to keep track of what has already occurred rather than to completely plan for the future and force those plans to go through.

I've heard of five motivations for GMs who railroad like that:
- The GM is running an adventure written by someone else and the players want to do something that would break it, preventing much of the rest of the adventure from happening as its written. Sometimes because the adventure is poorly written, sometimes because PCs tried something that the author couldn't reasonably expect (eg, the system gave PCs a way to fly after the module was written).
- The GM prepared a lot of content for the session. But letting the players get away with whatever they are trying will mean having to throw most of it out and improvise.
- The GM has a really cool scene he wants to play out. So he's railroading to force that scene into existence.
- The GM has what he thinks is a really clever puzzle/solution. So he wants to show off how smart he is by not letting the party pass until they figure out his solution.
- The GM wants the Paladin to fall, because there are some GMs who think that forcing Paladins to fall is a good thing. Hence the 'fat man' trolley problem. Do nothing and the Paladin falls for not saving those on the track. Kill the fat man and the Paladin falls for killing him.

The first two are the mistakes of inexperienced/unconfident GMs. The third could be the mistake of an inexperienced GM or the actions of someone who really should be writing their story instead of trying to make players act it out. The last two are the actions of someone who shouldn't be GMing.