View Full Version : US Lend-Lease
I don't think this is a bug, or anything, but I'm curious: How often do the Americans send Lend-Lease equipment before the end of 1939?
Another question: In version 3.4 (b) the Italian Mediterranean formation has 100% proficiency and supply, whereas most German formations have 70% prof and 50% supply, and the DAK has 50% prof and 10% supply (I know the DAK has been fixed in the newest version). Should the Italians have such high prof and supply?
Also, what does a formations prof affect? I know what a formations supply affects, but not their proficiency.
Secadegas
18 Dec 06, 05:24
Also, what does a formations prof affect? I know what a formations supply affects, but not their proficiency.
Formation proficiency affects the chance of the formation go on reorganization after heavy fighting. The lower the formation proficiency the higher the chance.
Also influences the (unit) proficiency of reconstituted units which tend to be closer to formation proficiency.
Secadegas
18 Dec 06, 06:08
Or even better from Manual... (9.1.10 - Command & Control)
Formation Attack Restrictions
Units of formations failing a formation quality check at the beginning of a turn are considered to be reorganizing and will only be available for non-combat orders. They will accept all other orders, and they will defend normally, but are not available for launching attacks or bombardments.
Formation quality is the average of the formation's proficiency and average assigned unit quality. Formation quality is reduced if many units are divided. The formation passes the quality check if this value is greater than a random number from 1 to 100, or if the number of units that experienced severe combat results in the previous turn is smaller than a random number from 1 to the number of units in the formation. This means that formations are subject to reorganization on turns following heavy combat.
Formation proficiency is reduced by 50% if any assigned HQ unit is eliminated, or if all assigned command groups in the HQ have been eliminated. You should attempt to protect your headquarters units to avoid this drop in proficiency.
Or even better from Manual... (9.1.10 - Command & Control)
Formation Attack Restrictions
Units of formations failing a formation quality check at the beginning of a turn are considered to be reorganizing and will only be available for non-combat orders. They will accept all other orders, and they will defend normally, but are not available for launching attacks or bombardments.
Formation quality is the average of the formation's proficiency and average assigned unit quality. Formation quality is reduced if many units are divided. The formation passes the quality check if this value is greater than a random number from 1 to 100, or if the number of units that experienced severe combat results in the previous turn is smaller than a random number from 1 to the number of units in the formation. This means that formations are subject to reorganization on turns following heavy combat.
Formation proficiency is reduced by 50% if any assigned HQ unit is eliminated, or if all assigned command groups in the HQ have been eliminated. You should attempt to protect your headquarters units to avoid this drop in proficiency.
Thanks, Secagrdas.
I don't think this is a bug, or anything, but I'm curious: How often do the Americans send Lend-Lease equipment before the end of 1939?
It's situational. I've had the Allies get Lend Lease in '39 roughly half the time when I play as the Axis. (Heck, one game, I even had them enter against me in '39! But, to be fair, I *was* being a bit of a warpig!)
:rifle:
It's situational. I've had the Allies get Lend Lease in '39 roughly half the time when I play as the Axis. (Heck, one game, I even had them enter against me in '39! But, to be fair, I *was* being a bit of a warpig!)
:rifle:
Hahaha. Right'o. :laugh:
Sometimes, if the opportunity presents itself, I'll start making nuisance attacks against the French prior to the Sitz. I never intentionally try to kill them prior to 1940, but with massed arty and air, you can usually inflict a bit of damage for negligible losses. On occassion, I can catch my opponent napping, or some other possibility presents itself, and I'll continue on with the assualt. (Only if I'm eating the terrain up for next to nothing, or I see potential for large encirclements, etc - in other words, the situation has to be begging for me to intercede...)
In that case, I'll let the French have it. And, once in a blue, blue moon, Paris will fall prior to the Sitz. Having that, with Italy in, the Balkans subjugated, Norway/Denmark and Poland taken adds up to quite a hit to the USEV. If a couple other things happen, for example, the Reds behave and don't cause any USEV modifiers themselves, then all it takes is some damage to the Brits, and you can have the US in.
(By which time you really, really deserve it... :laugh: )
Sometimes, if the opportunity presents itself, I'll start making nuisance attacks against the French prior to the Sitz. I never intentionally try to kill them prior to 1940, but with massed arty and air, you can usually inflict a bit of damage for negligible losses. On occassion, I can catch my opponent napping, or some other possibility presents itself, and I'll continue on with the assualt. (Only if I'm eating the terrain up for next to nothing, or I see potential for large encirclements, etc - in other words, the situation has to be begging for me to intercede...)
In that case, I'll let the French have it. And, once in a blue, blue moon, Paris will fall prior to the Sitz. Having that, with Italy in, the Balkans subjugated, Norway/Denmark and Poland taken adds up to quite a hit to the USEV. If a couple other things happen, for example, the Reds behave and don't cause any USEV modifiers themselves, then all it takes is some damage to the Brits, and you can have the US in.
Ahh, well, this si somewhat akin to what I did...Took Poland, then hit Yugoslavia and Greece, while at the same time bringing in the Italians to take the Med islands to bulk up the DAK, with the Italians and French now at war, I sent a good chunk of my Inf up there (while my Panzers were still busy in France). They managed to break-through the Alps and my Panzers, freeded by a two turn war in Greece thanks to my paras, joined them for the stroll through the country-side to Paris, which I have now captured on turn 22. Fortunately the Soviets attacked Iran, the Baltics, and Finland, lowering the USEV a bit, or else I'd potentially be facing the US pretty soon, eh? :laugh:
Eded up loosing about 20K HRS by the fall of Paris.
That is an exceptional result, especially with all the side-show-Bob stuff you were also engaged in. That's likely about half-price. ;) (IIRC, the 'average' cost by the time France was complete, against a similarily skilled opponent was ~35k HRSs lost).
Yes, the Reds can also help quite a bit with the reductions they cause to the USEV. A bit of a sneaky one here, but that's why I''ll pass it on to everyone... I don't do this intentionally, as I'm going to take all these actions regardless of what the Germans do, but I have noticed that when I trigger these penalties to the USEV (as the Russian player), if the German has not done enough damage to 'cover' the costs of this Red aggression, you can get away with some of it for free.
Say, (for example, as I do not have the values in front of me at work :) ), that the Germans have the USEV at +10. If you do Finland and the Baltics, etc, and the hit is -25 to the USEV; well, 10 minus anything greater than 10 still leaves the modifier at 0...
That is an exceptional result, especially with all the side-show-Bob stuff you were also engaged in. That's likely about half-price. ;) (IIRC, the 'average' cost by the time France was complete, against a similarily skilled opponent was ~35k HRSs lost).
Yeah, I seemed to remeber that the average was about 25-35K HRS. :ar15: :D The thing about what I did, however, is that I have not taken Belgium or the Nederlands. So, I now have a question: Is it worth it to leave the Belgians and Dutch in place? (This would only matter if I fail to defeat the USSR)
The upside of leaving the Dutch/Belgians in place is either a) I have a much smaller frontage to cover in the west along the German border, or b) I get extra, fresh, troops if the Allies decide to invade Belgium/Nederlands to stretch my frontage.
The downside is...what?
Yes, the Reds can also help quite a bit with the reductions they cause to the USEV. A bit of a sneaky one here, but that's why I''ll pass it on to everyone... I don't do this intentionally, as I'm going to take all these actions regardless of what the Germans do, but I have noticed that when I trigger these penalties to the USEV (as the Russian player), if the German has not done enough damage to 'cover' the costs of this Red aggression, you can get away with some of it for free.
Say, (for example, as I do not have the values in front of me at work :) ), that the Germans have the USEV at +10. If you do Finland and the Baltics, etc, and the hit is -25 to the USEV; well, 10 minus anything greater than 10 still leaves the modifier at 0...
A good point. Fortunately, one would generally do whatever he is goign to do with the Reds regardless, and the USEVs are much more uncertain than they were in past versions, but, regardless, an interesting point.
Yeah, I seemed to remeber that the average was about 25-35K HRS. :ar15: :D The thing about what I did, however, is that I have not taken Belgium or the Nederlands. So, I now have a question: Is it worth it to leave the Belgians and Dutch in place? (This would only matter if I fail to defeat the USSR)
The upside of leaving the Dutch/Belgians in place is either a) I have a much smaller frontage to cover in the west along the German border, or b) I get extra, fresh, troops if the Allies decide to invade Belgium/Nederlands to stretch my frontage.
The downside is...what?
Well, since France is dead, there is no downside. You are defended by troops that aren't even yours - it's all good! And no hit to the USEV for those countries - if there is no US in the war yet, that is also good. And you still have a TO left, thought that might be something that should be worked out with your opponent.
Some people get irate if the TOs are not used historically. For myself, I go with what Mark made mention of (in the briefing, iirc), that they can just be viewed as representing an offensive somewhere in the theatre. The purpose of me playing this game is to have an ahistoric outcome. Ergo, I don't feel my offensives should be limited to what happened historically.
As an example, in my game with Pierre, he is making great headway into Russia in 1941, but I have all of Spain as the Allies, and am slowly making headroads into southern France. DDay is going to be nothing like the 1944 version we all know so well. I find nothing wrong with finding other uses for it. The TOs represent offensives taken during the course of the war, and their number is finite. If there is no reason for a particular offensive whatsoever, it would not be launched. That effort would logically be spent in an area that is of concern to the nation involved. It doesn't just 'disappear'; the troops, supplies and logistics are still available for operations - they would simply be directed elsewhere.
I should add this to my pre-game houserules document. I'd hate to have it cause an issue mid-game. But I do feel there is no need to waste these options.
My gut feeling is that it should be a 'gentleman's agreement'. You should try to use them somewhat historically (ie - do not purposely enact gamey moves). But that being said, if for one reason or another you have something left, by all mean, use it.
Well, since France is dead, there is no downside. You are defended by troops that aren't even yours - it's all good! And no hit to the USEV for those countries - if there is no US in the war yet, that is also good. And you still have a TO left, thought that might be something that should be worked out with your opponent.
The only problem with using this TO is that I have to go to war with those countries to use it!! :eek: :laugh: However, points taken.
Some people get irate if the TOs are not used historically. For myself, I go with what Mark made mention of (in the briefing, iirc), that they can just be viewed as representing an offensive somewhere in the theatre. The purpose of me playing this game is to have an ahistoric outcome. Ergo, I don't feel my offensives should be limited to what happened historically.
Right. And, I think that with some of these new events added with TOAW III Mark should create some new offensive TOs, as I think had been discussed earlier. :D
I should add this to my pre-game houserules document. I'd hate to have it cause an issue mid-game. But I do feel there is no need to waste these options.
And I think I'll add it to my version of your House Rules agreement. :laugh:
My gut feeling is that it should be a 'gentleman's agreement'. You should try to use them somewhat historically (ie - do not purposely enact gamey moves). But that being said, if for one reason or another you have something left, by all mean, use it.
I concur.
Mark Stevens
20 Dec 06, 16:19
The thing with this scenario is that we all 'know' that Germany is relatively strong early on, compared to Poland, France, etc., and that it is perfectly capable of mounting air and sea operations against Norway or, in conjunction with Italy, in the Mediterranean. In reality this came as a very pleasant surprise to the Germans, including the General Staff, who were constantly begging Hitler to delay or limit his proposed offensives. It was only after France collapsed so quickly that they really bought into the possibility of dominating the Continent militarily, and most of them started weeping and wailing again when Hitler gave them the glad tidings that they would soon be going east.
I've tried to limit the Axis player from going on all-out offensives from the very start by sticking in the 'sitzkrieg' cease-fire, and by having the 'Case Yellow' TO only appear in Spring 1940, but an experienced Axis player who knows what to expect can still do a lot more damage, with the same forces, than the Germans actually achieved.
Also, because we all 'know' that Germany and the USSR must face off in the game at some point, we all tend to forget that they were effectively allied from August 1939 to June 1941, with the German conquests in the west being matched by the Russian's war against Finland, and occupation of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, and Bessarabia and Bukovnia. I've tried to simulate this by the use of the exclusion zone and the negative USEVs for Soviet aggression, but it is a bit of an artificial solution.
For most of the game, supply is so high, and the German formations of such high proficiency, that they're all available for near constant offensives, often on several fronts at once. In fact, as we all know, they tended to concentrate on one target at a time, i.e. Poland - LONG PAUSE FOR WINTER & INDECISION - Denmark and Norway - France and the Low Countries - Yugoslavia (owing to the coup) and Greece (because the Italians had got bogged down there) and, finally and disasterously, the USSR. This took the best part of two years.
Maybe the initital supply levels should be significantly lower, and increase by five (?) every six months to simulate the slow move to a war economy and increasing confidence? Thing is, get it wrong and half the German army will be reorganising every turn = scenario's crap. Or the increases could be tied to the fall of the various Allied capitals? We've got the three for Narvik and Paris, but that's it at the moment.
I've often thought of simply reducing every unit's movement to slow down the overall pace of the scenario, but it's hard enough to get armoured breakthroughs as it is, and making them move more slowly just converts armoured and motorised more into battering rams than rapiers.
Another problem is that shock and supply bonuses apply across the entire theatre: you can rationalise this with a bit of effort, but it IS balls that the use of 'Case Yellow' against France also gives the Italians more chance of fighting their way through the Middle East or Greece, and the more offensive bonuses we put in, the more distorions that will create.
Tricky, tricky.
First, I just want to clearly state that I didn't think Lend-Lease comign early was a bad thing in any way, I was just curious how often this happened.
The thing with this scenario is that we all 'know' that Germany is relatively strong early on, compared to Poland, France, etc., and that it is perfectly capable of mounting air and sea operations against Norway or, in conjunction with Italy, in the Mediterranean. In reality this came as a very pleasant surprise to the Germans, including the General Staff, who were constantly begging Hitler to delay or limit his proposed offensives. It was only after France collapsed so quickly that they really bought into the possibility of dominating the Continent militarily, and most of them started weeping and wailing again when Hitler gave them the glad tidings that they would soon be going east.
I weep and wail everytime I tell myself I'm headed east, too. :laugh:
I've tried to limit the Axis player from going on all-out offensives from the very start by sticking in the 'sitzkrieg' cease-fire, and by having the 'Case Yellow' TO only appear in Spring 1940, but an experienced Axis player who knows what to expect can still do a lot more damage, with the same forces, than the Germans actually achieved.
Kudos to you, I agree, the Germans cannot simply be allowed to rampage all over the map at will. :)
Also, because we all 'know' that Germany and the USSR must face off in the game at some point, we all tend to forget that they were effectively allied from August 1939 to June 1941, with the German conquests in the west being matched by the Russian's war against Finland, and occupation of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, and Bessarabia and Bukovnia. I've tried to simulate this by the use of the exclusion zone and the negative USEVs for Soviet aggression, but it is a bit of an artificial solution.
While I never forget this, I do, however, not see what you were meaning to say with this...
For most of the game, supply is so high, and the German formations of such high proficiency, that they're all available for near constant offensives, often on several fronts at once. In fact, as we all know, they tended to concentrate on one target at a time, i.e. Poland - LONG PAUSE FOR WINTER & INDECISION - Denmark and Norway - France and the Low Countries - Yugoslavia (owing to the coup) and Greece (because the Italians had got bogged down there) and, finally and disasterously, the USSR. This took the best part of two years.
Maybe the initital supply levels should be significantly lower, and increase by five (?) every six months to simulate the slow move to a war economy and increasing confidence? Thing is, get it wrong and half the German army will be reorganising every turn = scenario's crap. Or the increases could be tied to the fall of the various Allied capitals? We've got the three for Narvik and Paris, but that's it at the moment.
THis could be an idea, but we still need to see what the balance of 3.4 is before we really try to rework it. From what I've heard EA has come a long ways form its humble beginnings. :D
I've often thought of simply reducing every unit's movement to slow down the overall pace of the scenario, but it's hard enough to get armoured breakthroughs as it is, and making them move more slowly just converts armoured and motorised more into battering rams than rapiers.
Yeah, not a good plan.
Another problem is that shock and supply bonuses apply across the entire theatre: you can rationalise this with a bit of effort, but it IS balls that the use of 'Case Yellow' against France also gives the Italians more chance of fighting their way through the Middle East or Greece, and the more offensive bonuses we put in, the more distorions that will create.
Unfortuante, but true, hopefully TOAW III will improve along these lines some day.
Also, because we all 'know' that Germany and the USSR must face off in the game at some point, we all tend to forget that they were effectively allied from August 1939 to June 1941, with the German conquests in the west being matched by the Russian's war against Finland, and occupation of the Baltic States, eastern Poland, and Bessarabia and Bukovnia. I've tried to simulate this by the use of the exclusion zone and the negative USEVs for Soviet aggression, but it is a bit of an artificial solution.
While I never forget this, I do, however, not see what you were meaning to say with this...
Mark, you flaky bastard, you never did answer this.
Another problem is that shock and supply bonuses apply across the entire theatre: you can rationalise this with a bit of effort, but it IS balls that the use of 'Case Yellow' against France also gives the Italians more chance of fighting their way through the Middle East or Greece, and the more offensive bonuses we put in, the more distorions that will create.
Unfortuante, but true, hopefully TOAW III will improve along these lines some day.
Regarding Shock (though not really the shock you were refering to.
I was actually thinking, following the fabulous gains I made in Italy while the Soviet Winter Shock was in effect, that it was totally ahistorical and we might need House Rules to allieviate the severe distortion created by the Western Allies having a Shock advantage during winter, a period where they, traditionally, sat down, and didn't do much/any campaigning.
Case 1) Gothic Line:
The Allies settled down when they failed to break the line in November '44. Their offensive action did not resume here until April '45.
Case 2) North-West Europe:
The Allies finished mopping up the Ardennes Offensive in January '45 and did not advance, to cross the Rhine, until late March.
I'm thinking, right now, that maybe we need to institute a House Rule along the lines of:
From the moment the Soviet Winter Shock comes into effect the Western Allies in Spain, Italy, France, German, or the Balkans, may make no more offensive efforts except to A) RBC enemy units, B) advance into uncontested territory, or B) regain any territory recently lost (recently lost being defined as any territory held by the Allies that has been lost 2 months or less before the beginning of the Winter Shock bonus, or that has been lost since the Winter Shock bonus began).
Yes, of course, on the face of it, this seems overly restrictive, but, when you look at it, the Western Allies were very hard pressed to advance during winter.
The definition of recently could, of course, be cleaned up, but the spirit of that last point [C)] is to allow the Allies to re-coop any losses to a 'Ardennes' type offensive launched just prior to the Winter Shock Bonus taking affect.
I, of course and always, welcome comments.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.