New suggestions

[Mark Stevens]

1. Tie the 'Operation Marita' bonus directly to the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, rather than leave it as an Option, i.e. the same as we've done for the 'Invasion of the Low Countries'. If Yugoslavia collapses quickly, and Italy, Rumania and perhaps Bulgaria are already in the war, it will also boost - as it did - the attack on Greece.

I know this is inconsistent with our policy on 'Case Yellow' and 'Barbarossa', but I feel that for the main invasions of major powers like France and the USSR it is more reasonable to allow the Axis Player some flexibility.

2. Cancel the Option for the Axis to mobilise Spain six months after the US enters the war. Spain was heavily dependent on US oil and food, and, as an Atlantic country, very open to American pressure. (If Spain's already in, or enters during the six months, we can 'cancel the cancellation' as it were.)

Someone pointed out in an earlier thread that it's balls (although they didn't express it quite so crudely) that Spain can still be kept up the Axis Player's sleeve even when the latter may be fighting the British Commonwealth, the USA, and the USSR, and having read the relevent chapter of Paul Preston's 'Franco' again, I have to agree with them.

This would still leave the Option for the Allies to initiate a war with Spain.

This can be done very simply, without the major overhaul required for redesigning the Lend Lease Events.

Comments welome.

[otto]

I agree with both points. If Hungary is in the war Yugoslavia falls in 1 turn. Even if just Romania is in it will fall on the first turn. If they are not in it is only about 3 turns before the Axis bully their way down to Begrade. Not get a massive discussion/thread going but, you really should free up a couple neutral units within each country. Unless the Axis is very unlucky Poland, Netherlands, Yugoslavia (assuming Hungary or Romania are in) and Belguim (not always) fall in one turn. In my current game Poland and the Low Countries were out on turn 3. Norway will fall in one turn too (why isn't there anyone in the beach next to Oslo?).

I also agree with Spain.

While I am typing - I think the US Entry variable for the Battle of Britian should be increased to 10 or 15. Five points is very minor. Ab Axis player would be smart to choose the BoB TO even if he had no intention of attacking England.
I also think the Low Country attack should be moved to +25 for US Entry. Since it automatically brings France into teh war the Allies lose out on the +15. I can not imagine many people deciding to just attack France through the Maginot and/or Alps.

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by otto
While I am typing - I think the US Entry variable for the Battle of Britian should be increased to 10 or 15. Five points is very minor. Ab Axis player would be smart to choose the BoB TO even if he had no intention of attacking England.
I also think the Low Country attack should be moved to +25 for US Entry. Since it automatically brings France into teh war the Allies lose out on the +15. I can not imagine many people deciding to just attack France through the Maginot and/or Alps.

It would be fine to increase these entry variables but their would have to be an offsetting change on the other side (-15 for France/UK declaring war on Germany?).

[Berkut]

I like both ideas.

Question: Is the Operation Marita bonus supposed to go away onve Yugoslavia falls, if it enters without a German DoW?

I just noticed in a game I am playing that the TO still exists for the Axis side (me), but Yugoslavia has been conquered for a very long time. Now I am wondering if it is fair for me to use it just for the shock bonus.

Also (totally unrelated), the briefing states that partisan and gerilla units cannot voluntarily leave thier home countries. Does that apply to the Spanish Reds that activate to oppose the Spanish troops if Spain is activated?

Berkut

[Mark Stevens]

Yes, I'm sorry to say that the 'Marita' bonus is supposed to disappear once Yugoslavia's conquered, but doesn't. That's partly why tying it in directly to the invasion/DoW makes sense.
Whether you 'save' it in your current game depends on who and how you're playing!

Anything labelled as Guerilla, Garrison or Irregular Infantry represents some sort of Volksturm, Home Guards, guerillas, partisans, irregulars, workers militia, rebels or whatever, and they should all keep within their home country, or lurk on the immediate border if they're pushed over it, trying to get back home. I'm willing to assume that, unlike a regular force, which should be interned if it enters neutral territory, guerillas would evade capture.

The few exceptions are the Finnish Guerillas, which represent their ultra-mobile light/ski infantry and the British SOE Partisan Group, which does represent a small force of regulars trained in guerilla warfare. I'm sure that other countries had similar troops, but I don't know them. Some countries have Special Forces iconed troops, which are regulars.

I also agree with Otto that the Axis Player would be smart to initiate the Battle of Britain Option even if he's no intention of invading - it still represents attacks to cripple the RAF and the Royal Navy. (Unless, of course, that 5 points will initiate Lend Lease or actual US Entry!)

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by otto

While I am typing - I think the US Entry variable for the Battle of Britian should be increased to 10 or 15. Five points is very minor. Ab Axis player would be smart to choose the BoB TO even if he had no intention of attacking England.
I also think the Low Country attack should be moved to +25 for US Entry. Since it automatically brings France into teh war the Allies lose out on the +15. I can not imagine many people deciding to just attack France through the Maginot and/or Alps.

The allies almost never get the +15 from a German DOW on France. If the allies declare war after poland is invaded there isn't any EV shift. While the allies could theortetically pass on declaring war to get the +15 when the germans do it the tradeoff is that they're unable to change the default orders of troops on the french/belgian border (most are set to reserve and will rush to their deaths in belgium) or transfer the colonial corps from africa. By not doing this the allies are guaranteeing the Germans an inexpensive france. As the axis, I would be delighted if my opponent was willing to oblige me by remaining nuetral until I attacked.

[Mark Stevens]

Yes, we've organised it like that because - a lot of people forget - it was Britain and France that declared war on Germany at the start of WWII, not the other way round. If Hitler could have got away with gobbling up Poland without any opposition from the Western Allies, he'd have been overjoyed.

[SkyVon]

Originally posted by Berkut
I like both ideas.

Question: Is the Operation Marita bonus supposed to go away onve Yugoslavia falls, if it enters without a German DoW?

I just noticed in a game I am playing that the TO still exists for the Axis side (me), but Yugoslavia has been conquered for a very long time. Now I am wondering if it is fair for me to use it just for the shock bonus.

Also (totally unrelated), the briefing states that partisan and gerilla units cannot voluntarily leave thier home countries. Does that apply to the Spanish Reds that activate to oppose the Spanish troops if Spain is activated?

Berkut

In a solo h2h game, I have had the SOVIETS DECLARE WAR ON THE AXIS t/o come up about a year after they already had selected that option. I tested that option again and found that the German forts did not rebuild (those that were destroyed).

After the Soviets took Sofia, the Turks joined the Allied side (as they should) but the Axis TO to declare war is still on. I also tested that option and did not notice any changes.

I did, however, have the comm turk guer unit appear real early in the game. Turkey was still neutral. I just parked that unit in the eastern part of Turkey.

I am also seeing UK part units (UK was conquered) appearing in Ankara and the Soviet Union. I have desibanded them on sight as I can't imagine that happening.

[Tero]

Maybe the option to bring Spain could disappear immediately after US has entered? Otherwise an artful Axis player might still check out the entry hexes of the Paul Reynaud troops, annihilate them, get Spain, and this time without the +15 disadvantage.

[Mantis]

Maybe not so bad as that. It would still be feasible for them to join the Axis cause if it appeared the Axis was winning. Or what about If the Germans finish off the Russians prior to US entry (or even with US entry), they'd be more than happy to jump in for a nice slice of Africa. I'd either leave it the way it is, or at the very worst make it a year after US entry that it leaves.

Unless it's absolutely glaring, I'm not sure we should change anything that can make a given side stronger or weaker. It's not been very long that we've even had the theatre option working properly, does it really need to be axed at a certain point?

[Mark Stevens]

I think - in fact I'm utterly certain - that Spain was so dependent on US oil and food, and it's coasts so very vunerable to blockade, let alone an attack, that how well Germany was doing in the depths of Russia wouldn't have outweighed Franco's natural caution. I'm not suggesting that they disband, or join the Allies, but removing the Option to mobilise them would be realistic.

Re Tero's post above, surely if the US has entered the + 15 penalty wouldn't be relevent anymore: have I missed your point?

[Mark Stevens]

I'm thinking strongly about:

cancelling the Axis Option to mobilise Spain one year after the US enters the war - discussed at length above (or is it below now?)

tying the 'Operation Marita' bonus directly to the invasion of Yugoslavia (i.e. no longer an Option)

adding a fortified zone to the French side of the border with Italy apparently there was a mini-Maginot Line extension there, not enough to justify actual forts, but deserving recognition. Supposedly, six French Alpine Divisions held up thirty-two Italians in June 1940. In most games I've seen, the Italians just walk through it.

as part of the above, allowing the French Garrison units (to which the Alpine troops are attached) to move once France is at war: at present they're locked in place along with the static garrisons. This does mean that the static town garrisons will be able to creep about at one hex per turn, but I don't think this is a problem.

adding a 'Polish Mechanised Brigade' ('2 - 2') to the starting Warsaw Garrison. This is partly because there was such a unit which, together with some attached independent light tank companies, made up Poland's only mechanised reserve, and partly to make it more difficult for the Axis Player to line up his armoured and motorised units on the border and be able to guarantee taking Warsaw in one turn

adding an impassable hex barrier from Narvik to the northern map edge. Even if both Players agree that Allied units can be transferred from West to East, this won't be possible if the Axis are occupying the port. The ports either side of Narvik will remain, so a Player won't simply be able to place one unit on 'Fortify' and 'Ignore Losses' in Narvik itself and ignore the flanks.

as an added incentive for the Soviet Union to start the Winter War with Finland, disband a replacement unit with 999 LRS, 999 AT Rifle Squads, 500 T34/76s (early), 500 T28s, and 500 45mm AT Guns (overall raw strength '7 - 9') if the Option is chosen

I realise this still doesn't address the underlying OOB problems, etc., but the changes would be easy to make and test, and would, IMHO, improve the scenario. I'd even call it (g)!

I look forward to the customary hail of abuse...

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
I'm thinking strongly about:

cancelling the Axis Option to mobilise Spain one year after the US enters the war - discussed at length above (or is it below now?)

tying the 'Operation Marita' bonus directly to the invasion of Yugoslavia (i.e. no longer an Option)


fine by me


adding a fortified zone to the French side of the border with Italy apparently there was a mini-Maginot Line extension there, not enough to justify actual forts, but deserving recognition. Supposedly, six French Alpine Divisions held up thirty-two Italians in June 1940. In most games I've seen, the Italians just walk through it.

as part of the above, allowing the French Garrison units (to which the Alpine troops are attached) to move once France is at war: at present they're locked in place along with the static garrisons. This does mean that the static town garrisons will be able to creep about at one hex per turn, but I don't think this is a problem.


creeping garisons does bother me, but I'd rather have a mobile force in the alps.


adding a 'Polish Mechanised Brigade' ('2 - 2') to the starting Warsaw Garrison. This is partly because there was such a unit which, together with some attached independent light tank companies, made up Poland's only mechanised reserve, and partly to make it more difficult for the Axis Player to line up his armoured and motorised units on the border and be able to guarantee taking Warsaw in one turn

adding an impassable hex barrier from Narvik to the northern map edge. Even if both Players agree that Allied units can be transferred from West to East, this won't be possible if the Axis are occupying the port. The ports either side of Narvik will remain, so a Player won't simply be able to place one unit on 'Fortify' and 'Ignore Losses' in Narvik itself and ignore the flanks.


both sound great


as an added incentive for the Soviet Union to start the Winter War with Finland, disband a replacement unit with 999 LRS, 999 AT Rifle Squads, 500 T34/76s (early), 500 T28s, and 500 45mm AT Guns (overall raw strength '7 - 9') if the Option is chosen

I realise this still doesn't address the underlying OOB problems, etc., but the changes would be easy to make and test, and would, IMHO, improve the scenario. I'd even call it (g)!


why only 999? you can give 10x as many, and for as offensively weak as the russian forces are, actual losses will be far greater. I'd also suggest mentioning the armored corps that will deployed a number of turns after the winterwar in the briefing.


I look forward to the customary hail of abuse...

PS you smell

PPS you asked for it :D

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
I'm thinking strongly about:

cancelling the Axis Option to mobilise Spain one year after the US enters the war - discussed at length above (or is it below now?)

I like it with the delay.


tying the 'Operation Marita' bonus directly to the invasion of Yugoslavia (i.e. no longer an Option)

Ok, so what happens to players like me, who never declare war on them, but simply bring in the Italians early to let them join the Allies on their own?

adding a fortified zone to the French side of the border with Italy apparently there was a mini-Maginot Line extension there, not enough to justify actual forts, but deserving recognition. Supposedly, six French Alpine Divisions held up thirty-two Italians in June 1940. In most games I've seen, the Italians just walk through it.

I wondered about that, but I thought the fact that those infantry down there couldn't move mean they represented the line.

as part of the above, allowing the French Garrison units (to which the Alpine troops are attached) to move once France is at war: at present they're locked in place along with the static garrisons. This does mean that the static town garrisons will be able to creep about at one hex per turn, but I don't think this is a problem.

I've always wanted those garrisons to have a point of movement. Glad to see it finally in there.

adding a 'Polish Mechanised Brigade' ('2 - 2') to the starting Warsaw Garrison. This is partly because there was such a unit which, together with some attached independent light tank companies, made up Poland's only mechanised reserve, and partly to make it more difficult for the Axis Player to line up his armoured and motorised units on the border and be able to guarantee taking Warsaw in one turn

I've finally managed to take Warsaw in one, so now my life is complete, you can change it now. :) Ya, I agree something should be done to fix the 1 turn blitz.

adding an impassable hex barrier from Narvik to the northern map edge. Even if both Players agree that Allied units can be transferred from West to East, this won't be possible if the Axis are occupying the port. The ports either side of Narvik will remain, so a Player won't simply be able to place one unit on 'Fortify' and 'Ignore Losses' in Narvik itself and ignore the flanks.

This I am strongly in favor of. Narvik is more strategically important; it gives you a reason to send a few more Germans up there (perhaps encouraging more action on this front?), and now there isn't as much of a problem with Reds taking over the UK. :)

as an added incentive for the Soviet Union to start the Winter War with Finland, disband a replacement unit with 999 LRS, 999 AT Rifle Squads, 500 T34/76s (early), 500 T28s, and 500 45mm AT Guns (overall raw strength '7 - 9') if the Option is chosen

Although this is very nice to see, I think you can take or leave the armor, etc, and would be better served by having something more on the order of 10k LRS. Actually, that leaves open the problem of how many LRSs should they get if they blitz Helsinki in 4 turns; or if it never ends, and the Reds are scrapping from day one, right through to the start of hostilities with the Germans?

I can imagine a rough Finland, one where you fight all the way through, but the Finns hold out, costing the Reds 30-40k LRS or more. At the same time, I can see a quick one going over for under 10k. So the key is to make sure that they have a continual supply, but that the supply ends when Finland is dead.

If this is not possible, could the LRS amount in the disbanded unit be higher?

I realise this still doesn't address the underlying OOB problems, etc., but the changes would be easy to make and test, and would, IMHO, improve the scenario. I'd even call it (g)!

I look forward to the customary hail of abuse...

No, this one sounds pretty much on the mark to me. (Pun unintentional, believe me). I'd really like to see a bit more for the Reds vs. Finland, but aside from that I think all the changes are great.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
I think - in fact I'm utterly certain - that Spain was so dependent on US oil and food, and it's coasts so very vunerable to blockade, let alone an attack, that how well Germany was doing in the depths of Russia wouldn't have outweighed Franco's natural caution. I'm not suggesting that they disband, or join the Allies, but removing the Option to mobilise them would be realistic.

Re Tero's post above, surely if the US has entered the + 15 penalty wouldn't be relevent anymore: have I missed your point?


Well, that's why I'd prefer to see the Spain option disappear immediately, but it's no big deal to me.

re Winter War. Like I've said before, the Finnish army had about 250000 men in the fall of 39, with inadequate and obsolete weaponry, insufficient ammunition for long campaign and practically no armour. In the June of 41, they managed to field 500000 men with improvements in weaponry, backed by food and military aid from Germany. Current reinforcement schedule doesn't represent this very well.

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
I think - in fact I'm utterly certain - that Spain was so dependent on US oil and food, and it's coasts so very vunerable to blockade, let alone an attack, that how well Germany was doing in the depths of Russia wouldn't have outweighed Franco's natural caution. I'm not suggesting that they disband, or join the Allies, but removing the Option to mobilise them would be realistic.


I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. If Germany had crushed russia, replacing the US food/oil with a ukrainian/causcusan supply would be possible. With the germans stalled/being pushed back, I don't see the spanish joining. I'm not sure how to handle this is game terms though. Making the TO go away after US entry, but return if russia fell would be one option, but would require finding even more events.

[Mark Stevens]

I suppose a mere 999 LRS &etc. are a bit irrelevent in the grand scheme of things as a Soviet 'Winter War' bonus: how about -

9998 LRS
500 SMG Squads
500 HMGs
500 Mounted Rifle Squads
500 45mm AT Guns
500 T28s
500 T34/76 (early)s

Tero, I don't know enough about the Finnish Armed forces in WWII to make an informed comment, but there are slots in all the existing units for extra equipment, plus they do get those five Guerilla/Light Infantry reserves, and we recently added the three Northern Army Brigades, besides retaining the exclusion zone, which channels any attack from the USSR pre-'Barbarossa', after which the Red army should have its hands full (and, of course, the Finns benefit, like all the Axis units, from the 'Barbarossa' bonus).

[Tero]

I'm not saying we should assign the Finns more corps/equipment. I'm saying you should turn base some of the existing units. Perhaps the corps that starts in Helsinki could be set to enter around January-April 41? I think it would help the Russians quite a bit along with other suggestions already mentioned.

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Tero
I'm not saying we should assign the Finns more corps/equipment. I'm saying you should turn base some of the existing units. Perhaps the corps that starts in Helsinki could be set to enter around January-April 41? I think it would help the Russians quite a bit along with other suggestions already mentioned.

YES!! We're finally going over the Finns & Rusians...

I was about to reply to Mark's post re: raising the Reds to 10k LRSs, and ask that it be somewhat higher yet, perhaps 15k; but then I chanced to read this comment, and that would be of great help as well.

Let me give you a current battle report.

I'm Russia, and I'm slamming away at Finland (Ming). From the very first turn, I start redeploying for it. Ming had moved to crush Poland on his turn, so I sent the (2nd?) formation that begins closest to Poland to setup for a quick slam against the Poles to get vet status. The 1st and 3rd began a quick rail to appropriate locations against the Finns.

2nd then lines up to take the key position, attacking north up from Leningrad. 1st joined them, mechs on the rail, all front hexes 9 strong. Reserves and HQs in place to maximize supply and swap into the stacks. Recon available for any potential exploitations of gaps/surrounds.

3rd takes the north, with elements of the 2nd supplementing where required to achieve 9 in all stacks. (I failed to do this in 1 or two hexes, total front). 4th and odd reinforcements went campaigning in Persia.

Now, I'll admit that I learned something here. At first, I did a spoiling attack or two, then launched 18 units at one unit (min losses), and took horrendous damage, with large amounts of evapped corps. Ok, I say to myself, you know it's going to be a battle, you've played it from the Finn side before. But we've made some changes here since then, this is nasty.... Again I probe a few times, then I slam in, and again I take a bleeding...

Another turn or so of this, and I resolved to never do that again... I needed to utilize many combat phases, and wear the Finns right out, for as little loss as possible, and then slam into them with mostly fresh corps.

But this goes against my feelings that unless previously discussed, players should not launch a zillion min loss attacks with massive amounts of support using 1/3 of a 1-1 recon unit set to min losses vs. a stack of 9... Once per turn-ish is always acceptable, but if you're going to do these wear down attacks, you have to pay a 'minimum', otherwise I feel that I would be strongly taking advantage of the game system, to the detriment of the game itself.

Therefore, I always attacked him with a full corp/mech division/recon/what-have-you, to face his corp/corp+irr/etc. This strategy was starting to really payoff (although I still lost the odd corp, and still had trouble keeping units fresh), I had the Reds back up from Persia... The entire Red army was cycling in and out of the front, wearing out the Finns.

Winter approaches, I've managed to push the southern finns back into the second big chokepoint, Petsamo is mine, and I'm shoving him towards the next chokepoint to the west, and two entry-ways down, I managed to push him out of the bottleneck on the last turn before winter. &*%@!!! It came on the 1st possible turn, dammit... All his units were ready to be overrun, and this hit...

During the break, I shuffled around, and had great amount of units on the 'open' front. All the 'front' hexes still had 9 each, but I had close to 40 units ready to attempt a serious breach. I got past him a bit as he scrambled to cover, and we kept extending a line down south, right up against the exclusion zone. I finally got one farther than he could manage to provide a unit for, and I simply cannot move 1 hex farther. Supply is horrendous, and I can't risk him concentrating some of his forces and pinching me off. I'm cycling fresh units down there, but just the 1 hex of movement is sucking it out of them.

I'm now at a point where he's battered to hell, (so am I), and I think real progress will be made by the Russians in the near future. I believe I played soundly, I lost no units to being 'caught', never had my supply cut, etc, it's all gone about the only way it could go, you can't do more than have max units available, be maxxing out your combat phases to weaken him prior to this. There >is< nothing more to do than this.

My current losses (with the large fights yet to come):

40000 LRS.

The Germans can do in all of France for 30k, with Poland and the Low Countries in change. Now, I'm not going to dispute which campaign should cost how much in relation to the other; the point is that the Germans were replacing every one of those 30k, and the Russians were not replacing even 1.

Food for thought on what obstacles there are to overcome.

[Mantis]

Recent examinations of units have shown most of the Russian infantry corps average around 15 - 50 LRSs each.

[Mantis]

It will take me 13 months, 1 week to recover from the 40k LRS losses I currently have. Estimates of a final loss figure @ 65k require 21 months, 2 weeks to recover. As this battle has not even been fought yet, conservative estimates for this 'completion of recovery' date would be July '42.

This, however, doesn't take into account the fact that I will probably already have been at war with the Germans for roughly 15 months by this time.

[Mantis]

Can someone reccomend a better screencapture program? The snaps I took of the map positions were 100 - 260k

[Mantis]

Nevermind, I lowered image quality, and I've got the hang of this now. :D

[Mantis]

One more thing, these shots are from my turn in progress, so Ming's geting to see the extent of the breakout in the one shot for the first time.

Further apologies to my current opponents, my company is not leaving town til sometime monday, so I'm still up in the air. :rolleyes:

[Chuck?]

I'm not trying to be negative here but maybe you shouldn't attack the Finns so much and for so long if you want to keep losses down. Historically the Soviets only took a small amount of territory before signing a peace treaty with the Finns.

The final numbers of the Winter War:

Dates - November 30th, 1939 to March 12th, 1940
Finnish causalties - 25,000 killed and 45,000 wounded
Soviet causalties - 200,000 killed and many more wounded
USSR gains - Karelian isthmus, northern half of Lake Ladoga, Hango, and Petsamo.


The Allied player should be free to go for more, even taking Helsinki at some point in 1940 or 1941. However I don't think they should get a huge number of LRS dumped into the replacement pool to pay for the offensive.

[Mantis]

That's the point. We have hindsight. It's not an offensive. It's either a war, or it's nothing at all. You go for their throat, or you don't.

No one will ever choose a 'limited offensive'. This gives the Finns to the Axis for free, when there's a good chance that if you leave them alone, they'll never enter the war. So if you are going to fight them, you're going to kill them.

What I'm saying here is, the designers have added an 'alternate history' option here, to go to total war with the Finns.

It doesn't work.

If it is to work, it has to be big enough that it's worth choosing sometimes, but not so big that it gets chosen most of the time.

It's like the EC thing. That never happened either, but at least it's been thought out with the way it works in relation to the game system. Finland has not, and needs to be made both workable, and then balanced.

[Ming]

Just for clarification, The soviet losses in the winter war were larger than German losses in the Low Countries/France campaign. About twice as much, if I recall correctly.


If you care to know, my rifle squad losses are at 8,500 or so. Although a good number of Italians and a smaller number of Hungarians, Romanians, and Bulgarians are included in that number. As an example, my Finnish Corps are in pretty good shape manpower-wise, having around 700 rs each. (out of 732)

Supply and readiness is a large problem however, as Mantis' tactic of rotating attacks is beginning to take its toll. As you can see, his advance in the north is starting to make progress and I've decided to withdraw. I expect Stalin will posess all of Northern Finland soon. However, as he's pointed out, the advance didn't come cheap and I've got another bottleneck at Oulu.


I'd have to agree with Mantis that the Finnish position is too strong in relation to the Soviets at the beginning of the game, but as Chuck said, the historical winter war was very limited. IMHO I think if there was full scale Soviet invasion ala Germany - Poland there should be a greater Western response, which is beyond the scope of the game.
However, I think the situation could be addressed by perhaps widening the bottlenecks to two or three hexes wide (Here I'm thinking of the ones near Salia and in the far North. and possibly the one near Kupio. The bottlenecks created by the single excluded hex in the far south of the contested border could probably be done away with and replaced with a few 'Mannerheim Line' fortified zones. The actual defensive fortifications used by the Finns were pretty in depth, running from Lake Ladoga to the Gulf, and from the Soviet border to Viipuri.

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Mantis
That's the point. We have hindsight. It's not an offensive. It's either a war, or it's nothing at all. You go for their throat, or you don't.

I don't think the goal of the Soviets was to take Helsinki or even most of Finland. They were afraid that if Finland came under German control both Leningrad and Murmansk would be at risk. So they first demanded that the Finns cede some border territory including Viipuri and Petsamo as well as some land around Lake Ladoga.

However the Finns refused and the USSR began the 'Winter War'. After a number of months the border territory was secured and both sides were ready to make peace.

In game terms clearing out northern Finland and the Karelian isthmus has great benefit for the allies. Leningrad is secured for several turns until reinforcements arrive. A buffer is also put between Murmansk and Norway.

Without starting the 'Winter War' the allies risk being hammered from both the west and north. If the German player was smart they would put a couple of corp in northern Norway and then quickly take northern Russia. At the same time the Finns seize Leningrad which will bring in Sweden with several decent units.

Now the USSR will find both the armies of Sweden and Finland along with a couple of German units from Norway barring down from the north toward Moscow.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Mantis
That's the point. We have hindsight. It's not an offensive. It's either a war, or it's nothing at all. You go for their throat, or you don't.

No one will ever choose a 'limited offensive'. This gives the Finns to the Axis for free, when there's a good chance that if you leave them alone, they'll never enter the war. So if you are going to fight them, you're going to kill them.

What I'm saying here is, the designers have added an 'alternate history' option here, to go to total war with the Finns.

It doesn't work.

If it is to work, it has to be big enough that it's worth choosing sometimes, but not so big that it gets chosen most of the time.

It's like the EC thing. That never happened either, but at least it's been thought out with the way it works in relation to the game system. Finland has not, and needs to be made both workable, and then balanced.


Firstly to correct a historical point: The Soviets did try to occupy the whole country. This can be seen from the operational orders given to the Russian troops. E.g. bisect Finland in the north, around Suomussalmi (south of Salla) and advance to Oulu and the Gulf of Bothnia, all the way to Swedish border.

Soviet government, at first, declined to negotiate with the Finnish government and regarded "the government of the Democratic Republic of Finland" led by a Finnish communist O.V. Kuusinen. There's a decent site www.winterwar.com Check it out, if you're interested.

I think the true number of Soviet casualties will remain mystery forever. I've seen numbers ranging from quarter of a million to a full million (Krutchev's "calculation", which of course is BS) Krivosheev's book about Soviet losses gives a number of about 400000.

I think the Russian player should be able to pocket those two Finnish corps north of Ladoga and on a road leading to Kuopio in one turn (I did this last time). If the corps in Helsinki is removed there's only a garrison to throw in Kuopio, so the Axis player should have to divide and disperse their troops a bit. Possibly an extra hole on the exclusion zone as well?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Chuck


I don't think the goal of the Soviets was to take Helsinki or even most of Finland. They were afraid that if Finland came under German control both Leningrad and Murmansk would be at risk. So they first demanded that the Finns cede some border territory including Viipuri and Petsamo as well as some land around Lake Ladoga.

However the Finns refused and the USSR began the 'Winter War'. After a number of months the border territory was secured and both sides were ready to make peace.

The reason for peace was that Stalin was very worried about the proposed British and French aid for the Finns. Although the amount of aid was questionable in actual effect, it could have led to a conflict between SU and the Western Allies.

Petsamo was not ceded in the Winter War. It was the only area the Soviets had occupied, but withdrew. Probable reason behind this is that an English company held the stock majority in the Petsamo nickel mines and Stalin didn't want to upset the Brits.

In game terms clearing out northern Finland and the Karelian isthmus has great benefit for the allies. Leningrad is secured for several turns until reinforcements arrive. A buffer is also put between Murmansk and Norway.

Without starting the 'Winter War' the allies risk being hammered from both the west and north. If the German player was smart they would put a couple of corp in northern Norway and then quickly take northern Russia. At the same time the Finns seize Leningrad which will bring in Sweden with several decent units.

Now the USSR will find both the armies of Sweden and Finland along with a couple of German units from Norway barring down from the north toward Moscow.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Chuck


I don't think the goal of the Soviets was to take Helsinki or even most of Finland. They were afraid that if Finland came under German control both Leningrad and Murmansk would be at risk. So they first demanded that the Finns cede some border territory including Viipuri and Petsamo as well as some land around Lake Ladoga.

However the Finns refused and the USSR began the 'Winter War'. After a number of months the border territory was secured and both sides were ready to make peace.

The reason for peace was that Stalin was very worried about the proposed British and French aid for the Finns. Although the amount of aid was questionable in actual effect, it could have led to a conflict between SU and the Western Allies.

Petsamo was not ceded in the Winter War. It was the only area the Soviets had occupied, but withdrew. Probable reason behind this is that an English company held the stock majority in the Petsamo nickel mines and Stalin didn't want to upset the Brits.

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Tero

I think the Russian player should be able to pocket those two Finnish corps north of Ladoga and on a road leading to Kuopio in one turn (I did this last time). If the corps in Helsinki is removed there's only a garrison to throw in Kuopio, so the Axis player should have to divide and disperse their troops a bit. Possibly an extra hole on the exclusion zone as well?

Just pocketing the border corps isn't enough. In my game with Vaughn I pocketed both of the single corps, the salah regiment, and the petsamo garison on the 1st turn, a mech corp raced towards kupio stopping one hex short. Using the corp in the capital the finns were able to plug the gap between the lakes in the northern part of the exlusion zone, and retreated the 2 corps north of lenningrad to cover the south. He managed to form a solid line on the inner exclusion barrior and oulu. Losses to this point were 10k lrs. MY losses vs Mantis to this point were similar, so IMO the 10 lrs you're giving for the winter war is about right. In my game with mantis, I lost a total of 18k squads conquering the finns outright. Vaughn luanched case yellow at the end of 39 bringing my advance agains the finns to a complete halt. OTOH it's now turn49, the axis only controls 2 hexes in france not adjacent to the belgian/italian borders, the line in the north is static and the allies are counterattacking heavily in the south having destroyed 4 corps (3 italian, 1 german) breaking the line along the coast and crossing the border into italy. If the italians reorg again, I should be able to roll up his line and shatter the italian army. I doubt I'll be able to draw off enough germans from the north to allow the liberation of belgium, but garrisoning a line running from genoa to the swiss border largely with german forces should end any threat of a resumed offensive in the north.

[SkyVon]

I've now played several hotseat solo games and currently have 2 pbem games going. The second has seen early forts by both sides and currently we are staring at eachother from the safety of concrete overhead.

In the first game, France has finally fallen and I can see the writing on the wall for NA. As for Chuck taking England, he has no chance as I had moved all the DeGaulle units into England right after they appeared. Nothing in the rules said I couldn't do this :) Not to mention the "Burnt Truffle" (scorched earth) policy the French adopted towards the end...should keep his units trapped in France for a while.

The following are some observations/questions I have, thus far ;)

-- Poland falls WAY too easy (I understand that this is being fixed)

-- Swiss fall too easy also...should take more than one turn. Yes, Chuck went through Switzerland and took that country in one turn.

-- Malta fell WAY too easy also (1 turn and I DID also have a remenant Swiss, almost full str, unit there on ignore losses.) If Malta was that easy to take, it would of been taken in RL. It fell to only Italians, no less :P

-- I would like to see the Libyan supply hexes removed and one supply UNIT given to the Italians starting in Tobruk. From what I've seen in other EA games played, NA is almost a cake-walk for the Axis. If suppy was the major problem for the Axis in NA, shouldn't it be, somehow, represented here?

-- Finland is a bit too tough...as stated by someone else in this thread. I have been able to take the northern part of the country and am about to breakout southward from there...but DAMN! Is it possible to add a "Finland Truce" TO?

-- Allied air units are too strong this early on. Those LATE Spits really bug me (Mark, I'll email you this week with the plane info I have) and they do give the Allies an air advantage; if the Brits had LATE Spits in BoB, the outcome of that battle would never have been in doubt.

Just some thoughts thus far into the game. It's been fun...damn you Chuck :D

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by SkyVon
[B]Not to mention the "Burnt Truffle" (scorched earth) policy the French adopted towards the end...should keep his units trapped in France for a while. [B]

In our game I ended up both north and south of Paris just as the winter cease fire took place. Spent a couple of months throwing snowballs at each other before I took Paris on the first turn after the fighting recommenced.


-- Poland falls WAY too easy (I understand that this is being fixed)


Some players are able to take Warsaw in one turn. It took two turns in our game. This works out to two weeks of fighting and that isn't too bad. Historically Warsaw was under seige for almost two weeks and that is hard to recreate with TOAW at this scale.


-- Swiss fall too easy also...should take more than one turn. Yes, Chuck went through Switzerland and took that country in one turn.

The Swiss are very tough if they aren't beaten on the first turn. I did commit several panzer and mech corp to the attack as you had just about every Allied unit in Belgium and northern France at the time. It looked like a good way to break the stalemate. Also I had 'Case Yellow' bonus that turn too.


-- Malta fell WAY too easy also (1 turn and I DID also have a remenant Swiss, almost full str, unit there on ignore losses.) If Malta was that easy to take, it would of been taken in RL. It fell to only Italians, no less :P

I'm not sure how big the Malta garrison was historically. Maybe someone else knows that. However were I think I got you on this one was I had overwhelming sea and air support to go along with the two Italian corp. Also one 'Regia Marina' unit, one army corp, and one HQ unit were lost in the attack. Not exactly bloodless.


-- I would like to see the Libyan supply hexes removed and one supply UNIT given to the Italians starting in Tobruk. From what I've seen in other EA games played, NA is almost a cake-walk for the Axis. If suppy was the major problem for the Axis in NA, shouldn't it be, somehow, represented here?

This can be a cake-walk for the Axis if certain things go right. However the Allies do have the ability to put up a fight. For example, you may want to move your DeGaulle units down here ASAP:>

As for supply, many have said they would like to see ANOTHER supply point for the Axis in NA (in Egpyt).


-- Finland is a bit too tough...as stated by someone else in this thread. I have been able to take the northern part of the country and am about to breakout southward from there...but DAMN! Is it possible to add a "Finland Truce" TO?

Finland needs to be beaten fairly quickly or it can't be taken out for a long, long time. So far I've lost 7700 rifle squads, most of them Finn I think.


-- Allied air units are too strong this early on. Those LATE Spits really bug me (Mark, I'll email you this week with the plane info I have) and they do give the Allies an air advantage; if the Brits had LATE Spits in BoB, the outcome of that battle would never have been in doubt.

I wrote a question about this some time ago. It looked like the Luftwaffe in the new version of EA was weaker than the old one. When ever I look at the air briefing screen the allies always have air superiority.

[Mark Stevens]

I'm more than happy to look at the RAF if the equipment is demonstrably wrong, but remember our earlier discussions about tank replacements: it isn't possible to model the exact production schedules. If replacing the RAF's late Spitfires with early - albeit accurate - versions, means that Fighter Command gets shot down every turn, I know which I'd rather keep.

Finland? A lot of discussion from both sides. We need to avoid (i) the USSR simply walking all over the country or (ii) creating an army of Finnish superman who can take on the entire Red Army and not budge an inch. I think it's about right, perhaps with the suggested bonus Soviet unit for initiating the Winter War. Ideally, I'd like to abandon the exclusion zone entirely, but you only get two in the engine, and without that artificial limitation I fear that the Russians would just swamp the Finns because of the unit density in the vast spaces. We have to be careful with the Allied LRS, which are mainly used by the Red Army Infantry Corps: I know that some earlier versions of this game had them coming on from the start, and at 700 per turn X 40 extra turns it was very much harder for the Axis to launch a decent attack in the East, because the Allied Player could build up a reserve of 28,000 extra squads to replace the initial losses.

I don't think Malta and North Africa in general's a doddle for the Axis: it all depends on whether the island's garrisoned (what were the Swiss doing there!) and how much strength the Axis puts into the Desert. We've already removed the Axis SP from Benghazi and put it in Alexandria, and the Italian Supply unit will now start in North Africa. I'd hesitate to remove Tobruk as well, because that was a much fought over port hex. If the Allies can't or don't garrison the area properly, and/or the Axis put in a lot of extra units, particularly Germans, the result's obviously not going to follow the historical schedule. As I never tire of repeating, that's exactly what Admiral Raeder and Field Marshal Kesselring kept urging Hitler to do.

Poland: the Germans reached the outskirts of Warsaw in about two weeks - if we can juggle it so that a good player can repeat that I'll be happy. At present it's possible to line up the armour and motorised, declare war, and roll into Warsaw in one turn.

Switzerland: it's reasonably well-defended by decent units, mountainous and heavily fortified, but I suppose that an all-out German assault can roll over it - they must surely suffer some losses doing it? - and I suspect that would have been the case historically. Wasn't there time to stick some decent French into the mountains in the west of the country? Remember, it's also bringing either L-L or USA Entry closer.

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by SkyVon
I had moved all the DeGaulle units into England right after they appeared. Nothing in the rules said I couldn't do this :)


infact the rules *suggest* you do it. in the briefing the degaul div is described as the nucleus of the Free French army.


Not to mention the "Burnt Truffle" (scorched earth) policy the French adopted towards the end...should keep his units trapped in France for a while.


Blown bridges I assume. You can tie up the engineers for a while fixing them, but a month should be sufficient to get the bulk of the army forces out.


-- Malta fell WAY too easy also (1 turn and I DID also have a remenant Swiss, almost full str, unit there on ignore losses.) If Malta was that easy to take, it would of been taken in RL. It fell to only Italians, no less :P


What was there to defend it? if it only had the fort then it's eminantly takable. stick one of the reserve corps in and it becomes nearly impossible. The axis was planning to invade, but Rommel stole the supplies, and by the time the axis had enough stockpiled again the allies had heavily reinforced the island.


-- I would like to see the Libyan supply hexes removed and one supply UNIT given to the Italians starting in Tobruk. From what I've seen in other EA games played, NA is almost a cake-walk for the Axis. If suppy was the major problem for the Axis in NA, shouldn't it be, somehow, represented here?


Several other scenarios I've looked at have houseruled the number of Germans that can be sent south, with the relative ineptness of the italians, I think this would be a good balance.


-- Finland is a bit too tough...as stated by someone else in this thread. I have been able to take the northern part of the country and am about to breakout southward from there...but DAMN! Is it possible to add a "Finland Truce" TO?


the 10k LRS that will be given in the next version will cover the cost of a borderwar. I'd like to see a TO to handle this myself, but until one's added you and your opponent can always handle it with a house rule.


-- Allied air units are too strong this early on. Those LATE Spits really bug me (Mark, I'll email you this week with the plane info I have) and they do give the Allies an air advantage; if the Brits had LATE Spits in BoB, the outcome of that battle would never have been in doubt.


And then there's the 43/44 equiptment provided by LL, and the fact that it is impossible to loose aircraft as fast as they're produced. By 41 the germans will have 10s of thousands of extra aircraft in their inventory to replace the ones that're destroyed long after production has stopped.

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
We have to be careful with the Allied LRS, which are mainly used by the Red Army Infantry Corps: I know that some earlier versions of this game had them coming on from the start, and at 700 per turn X 40 extra turns it was very much harder for the Axis to launch a decent attack in the East, because the Allied Player could build up a reserve of 28,000 extra squads to replace the initial losses.


Regarding lrs, you might want to switch the swiss and turkish armys over to using regular squads instead. IF the russians carry out the winter war and take substantial losses, the swiss/turks won't get any replacements because they've all been taken by the red army. This is a problem in my game with vaughn, I managed to take sophia with the greeks, and have had the turkish almost entirely destroyed because there aren't any squads available to replace the losses.


If the Allies can't or don't garrison the area properly, and/or the Axis put in a lot of extra units, particularly Germans, the result's obviously not going to follow the historical schedule. As I never tire of repeating, that's exactly what Admiral Raeder and Field Marshal Kesselring kept urging Hitler to do.


The problem is that there's no real reason *not* to send a huge number of german corps into the desert. Unless France takes an excessively long amount of time, there'll be plenty of time to build up the germans in africa, overrun everything the brits can ship in, drive to the iranian border, and ship superflous corps back to the continent. The balkans are easily handled by Hungarain/Romanian forces, and if Spain is brought in, 2 or 3 armored corps will be more than plenty to storm gibralter and take out the Portuguese.

[Mark Stevens]

I think a possible solution is to move the Axis SP from Tobruk to Benghazi: that should mean that by the time their units get to El Alamein they would be on pretty restricted supply. Removing it completely would leave them dependent upon Tripoli, which is unduly restrictive. Supply seems to drop by ten for every length of six hexes away from an SP on minor roads?

It's either that or some arbitrary House Rule along the lines of 'due to historical supply restrictions, no more than two German Corps in North Africa', but you could probably argue much the same for Norway, Finland, the Levant or, come to that, the United Kingdom.

[SkyVon]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
I'm more than happy to look at the RAF if the equipment is demonstrably wrong, but remember our earlier discussions about tank replacements: it isn't possible to model the exact production schedules. If replacing the RAF's late Spitfires with early - albeit accurate - versions, means that Fighter Command gets shot down every turn, I know which I'd rather keep.



The Brits should start the war with EARLY Spits...this puts them about on par with the 109 emil/franz. The LATE Spits (IX's and XIV's) shouldn't arrive till around mid '41. The air war was one of punch, counter-punch. Early Spits to counter early 109s, 190's to counter early Spits, late Spits to counter 190s...109s were like a bad visiting realitive, they wouldn't go away. Goering said of the 190s early production that "they be turned out like so many hot rolls." Way back in the early days of our beloved game, it's creator did admit to some errors on the release dates of several aircraft. No idea why this wasn't fixed with ACOW. Not to harp on the Spits, but I did post, awhile back, on this forum the numbers for the different Spits...here they are again along with the 109 e/f numbers:

Spit Early Late
Anti Armor 1 3
Anti Pers 2 1
Anti Air 9 11
Defense 11 11

109 e/f
Anti Armor 3
Anti Pers 1
Anti Air 9
Defense 11

You can see, where it counts for fighters, Anti Air, the Spit Late has a decided advantage.

FWIW, here are the 190 early numbers:

Anti Armor 3
Anti Pers 2
Anti Air 11
Anti Air 11

Late 109s have the same numbers as the 190 early.


There are also several Brit Ftr air units that have MORE Spits than Hurricans (186 to 104.) Hurri's were the bread and butter for the Brits up to the BoB. You may want to check those numbers or at least reverse them.


Originally posted by Mark Stevens


I don't think Malta and North Africa in general's a doddle for the Axis: it all depends on whether the island's garrisoned (what were the Swiss doing there!)



I checked the rules before moving them there...rules state:

-- Swiss units are restricted to Western Europe.

Western Europe is defined as:

-- ...and the Mediterranean Islands.

This does include Malta...no?

Besides, those Swiss had a high prof and were looking real good. I figured them and the garrison would hold out against the Italians. As for the Axis loss taking Switzerland in one turn, Chuck will have to answer that.

What about the supply point in Tripoli then? Libya needs two? I know Tripoli was the larger port of the two. Wouldn't the supply in Tripoli and a supply UNIT in Tobruk be more accurate?


Originally posted by Mark Stevens

Switzerland: it's reasonably well-defended by decent units, mountainous and heavily fortified, but I suppose that an all-out German assault can roll over it - they must surely suffer some losses doing it? - and I suspect that would have been the case historically. Wasn't there time to stick some decent French into the mountains in the west of the country? Remember, it's also bringing either L-L or USA Entry closer.

Funny you should ask. The French mtn troops along side Switzerland and Italy NEVER were released...even when German troops were fighting other units right next to them. I think I read that your going to fix this though :) And no, there was time to move in units as Chuck seemed to get a 100% blow bridge rate on just about every bridge in the country...lol, even those bridges that had active fighter units right next to them.

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by SkyVon

What about the supply point in Tripoli then? Libya needs two? I know Tripoli was the larger port of the two. Wouldn't the supply in Tripoli and a supply UNIT in Tobruk be more accurate?


At that distance from the supply point, the supply unit will only suffice to bring supply to half max. The real problem is that a supply unit cannot make supply if a unit is in an unsupplied location. What this means is that if the only axis supply point in africa was trippoli, if the allies took it, and made a NS line at alamien or in the sinai, every axis unit in N Africa would have zero supply.


Funny you should ask. The French mtn troops along side Switzerland and Italy NEVER were released...even when German troops were fighting other units right next to them. I think I read that your going to fix this though :) And no, there was time to move in units as Chuck seemed to get a 100% blow bridge rate on just about every bridge in the country...lol, even those bridges that had active fighter units right next to them.

Yellowlined troops are immobile until individually attacked. Orangelined troops become mobile when an enemy unit moves next to 1 unit in the formation. RE bridge blowing, there's no way to stop it, fighters on AS are near useless. They might chewup the attacking bombers but they won't stop the attack, and AC replacement rates are so far in excess of losses that the losses will be made good the next turn. To get a gauranteed bridge attack, all you need to do is assign enough bombers that the added odds of success are >=100. Generally 2 green bombers are sufficient to do this, more are needed in difficult terrain.

[Mark Stevens]

OK, in addition to the other changes we've discussed, I'm trusting SkyVon on the RAF: each Fighter Group will start with 72/186 Hurricanes, 48/104 Spitfires (early) and a slot for 104 Spitfires (late). I've also reversed the production figures for Hurricanes and Spitfires, and for the latter the Allies will start with 'earlies' until May 1941, when the 'lates will' come in. I know that his comments about the Hurricane being the workhorse of the RAF are absolutely correct.

I trust this will not lead to the utter extermination of RAF Fighter Command.

I've also moved the Axis Supply Point from Tobruk to Benghazi, and there's another in Alexandria if they ever reach it. Hopefully this will slow any Axis avalanche along the North African coast.

Anything else? Otherwise it's (g)!

[SkyVon]

Mark, can you wait a day or two before releasing "G"? I have about completed all the air info and you may want to look it over before you release the next version. I >hope< to be able to email it all to you tomorrow.

Thanks!

P.S. I'm having college term paper flash backs doing this...where's the beer?!? :P

[Chuck?]

Mark,

Where did you and Ulver get most of your information on the aircraft of WWII? Do you have a lot of books and other 'hard' resources or did you use the internet?

[SkyVon]

Mark, just finished the Axis portion and am now starting on the Allied planes. Thus far up to page 30...hope you have word for windows 2002 :P If not, tell me what version you do have and I'll save it for that way.

It's so lengthy because in addition to some charts from books and the net, I've included a brief paragraph on each plane along with a nice pic. For most of the planes I have production numbers and for a few minor countries, I have some nice complete breakdowns of their aircraft. I have also looked at all the individual air units in the game and have commented where necessary. Of course, you can always 86 this info if you like. :)

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Dan Neely


MY losses vs Mantis to this point were similar,

Dan, if any part of your opinion in this is based on the game you and I had, forget it. The game you discussed was my first ever game of EA (or TOAW PBEM, for that matter), and looking back, I pretty much rolled over and shot myself in the head for you. I saw the hordes I was facing, and didn't think I could do much besides fight a delaying retreat, in the face of so many units.

I have since been 'educated', that yes, indeed, a single Finn corp can certainly hold off two stacks of 9 for months on end. This is the area in which the Finns can bleed the Russians the worst, and we didn't even have that in our game, as my 'newbie-ness' was telling me the situation was untenable. I left those spots to you without any real fight. Were we to do the Finns again, Dan, it would be a far different battle.

[Mantis]

[B-- Malta fell WAY too easy also (1 turn and I DID also have a remenant Swiss, almost full str, unit there on ignore losses.) If Malta was that easy to take, it would of been taken in RL. It fell to only Italians, no less :P

Then you were lucky, and it probably wasn't defended very strongly. I put one of the 4-5 reserve corps in both there and Gibraltar in my latest game. Neither of those places will be taken by sea. Period.


-- Allied air units are too strong this early on. Those LATE Spits really bug me (Mark, I'll email you this week with the plane info I have) and they do give the Allies an air advantage; if the Brits had LATE Spits in BoB, the outcome of that battle would never have been in doubt.

No they're not. I was starting to wonder about the same thing. Raver has been using the Allied air continually now, and I was astonished at the results he was getting. But as I could afford the losses, we kept on going at it. A few good land battles for everyone to kept mixed up with, and there almost is no RAF anymore. The situation will balance out in the end.

Raver and I had email going and I was commenting that I was quite impressed with the showing the RAF & French were making , and by the time I got his reply, we had a bit of a laugh over it, because we both had reversed our opinions of this entirely.

[Mantis]

I wrote a question about this some time ago. It looked like the Luftwaffe in the new version of EA was weaker than the old one. When ever I look at the air briefing screen the allies always have air superiority.

Leave the air alone!

While Raver was able to get some decent numbers in the air superiority column, it was never a problem to outmuscle him. Did you have the Italians involved as well? Even without, the Germans are more than a match for the Brits/French. My recent game has proved that. We really went at it!

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
[B]I'm more than happy to look at the RAF if the equipment is demonstrably wrong, but remember our earlier discussions about tank replacements: it isn't possible to model the exact production schedules. If replacing the RAF's late Spitfires with early - albeit accurate - versions, means that Fighter Command gets shot down every turn, I know which I'd rather keep.

It will. It stills happens whenever there's a big fight as it is, don't make it worse. The Allies weren't afraid to have a single plane in the sky anywhere within range of the luftwaffe for the first 4 years of the war, and it's pretty much there now. Making them earlier, weaker, will compound this problem.

I don't think Malta and North Africa in general's a doddle for the Axis:

A picture is worth a thousand words. This is the mayhem that Ming can enjoy when he opens the turn I just sent to him.

[Mantis]

3 or 4 Italian corps have been evapped, there are some Germans in there somewhere, and Ming has 2 corps of German in the south coast of Italy ready to come over. (Thus the invasion of the port).

In essence, I have enough of the UK to stall any invasion (I don't mean that I left it empty and said 'please, activate the Russians for me, I feel confident that I can push into the sea anything that he might care to bring across), Gibraltar and Malta are both unassailable, I have a minor offensive going in Ethiopia, which is not a whole lot, but is enough to be pushing the Italians gradually back towards Addis Ababa. Everything else (and there is a fair bit) is all in the Med. I starting shipping it there on the first turn, while securing my 3 'islands'. (UK/Gib/Malta)

Granted, the Axis can overwhelm the Middle East in some games; in almost all of them if he makes it a priority. But it doesn't always go that way, and there is also the huge Persian buffer zone and all those mountains to think about even if the Germans do push through that many Brits. The option is far more unattractive now than it was, especially if you're facing a mountain of Brits before you can even begin to ship anything down there.

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Mantis


Leave the air alone!



It depends on how the air asset are modeled on each side. For example late war Spitfires probably don't belong at the beginning of the game.

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Dan Neely


Several other scenarios I've looked at have houseruled the number of Germans that can be sent south, with the relative ineptness of the italians, I think this would be a good balance.



That's what I suggested when you and I encountered this the first time 'round, Dan. I mentioned that in the board game I've been designing, we went with a limit to the amount of Germans that can be down there. (Italians are unlimited). This limit went up if Malta was captured, and was removed if Gibraltar or the canal fell.

The results of all this discussion was the creation of the Persian bufferzone. Perhaps also adding in a restriction on German units would be too much? I'd prefer no Persia, but a limit of Germans. Enough so that the Brits could make a fight of it with the outcome in doubt for both sides. But since we already have Persia in there, shouldn't we perhaps wait on this til at least a >few< people have gone this route, just to see what the results of the newest chages are before we go and change it all again?

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Mantis


A picture is worth a thousand words. This is the mayhem that Ming can enjoy when he opens the turn I just sent to him.

It doesn't look good for Ming. The only thing I can suggest is for him to land those Germany corp in your rear at Alexandria if that's a possiblity. Otherwise a withdrawl to the west might be the best move.

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Dan Neely
[The problem is that there's no real reason *not* to send a huge number of german corps into the desert. Unless France takes an excessively long amount of time, there'll be plenty of time to build up the germans in africa, overrun everything the brits can ship in, drive to the iranian border, and ship superflous corps back to the continent. The balkans are easily handled by Hungarain/Romanian forces, and if Spain is brought in, 2 or 3 armored corps will be more than plenty to storm gibralter and take out the Portuguese.

Agreed. As stated in the last message, a 'neater' fix would be to limit the amount of Germans in Africa under certain circumstances. This would have the benefits of giving the Brit a real chance at defending the canal, instead of making it either the Brits crush the almost no italians down there, or the Italians stare across the lines at the Brits until enough Germans have shipped over that the outcome is already decided.

Benefit two, Malta's importance can be increased. Aside from a small supply shift, it's very underrated. Malta can be used to 'bump' the German limit up a couple if they own it. Same with Crete. (Could create some interesting little sideshows, no? Perhaps a paradrop on Crete? :) )

3rd benefit, as Dan stated above. There is no reason NOT to do this. This is unrealistic. There WAS no front down there, and if it seems that every Axis player will go for this move every single game, it's probably in need of adjusting.

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Mantis


Dan, if any part of your opinion in this is based on the game you and I had, forget it. The game you discussed was my first ever game of EA (or TOAW PBEM, for that matter), and looking back, I pretty much rolled over and shot myself in the head for you. I saw the hordes I was facing, and didn't think I could do much besides fight a delaying retreat, in the face of so many units.

I have since been 'educated', that yes, indeed, a single Finn corp can certainly hold off two stacks of 9 for months on end. This is the area in which the Finns can bleed the Russians the worst, and we didn't even have that in our game, as my 'newbie-ness' was telling me the situation was untenable. I left those spots to you without any real fight. Were we to do the Finns again, Dan, it would be a far different battle.

I was refering to losses taken in overrunning the border forces. The reds can sourround and kill all the forces along the eastern border in the 1st turn, before the finns can react.

I'm considering a hotseat test of the winterwar since my game with Vaughn didn't go in the way that I'd expected it to.

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Chuck


It doesn't look good for Ming. The only thing I can suggest is for him to land those Germany corp in your rear at Alexandria if that's a possiblity. Otherwise a withdrawl to the west might be the best move.

I think the Med is done for the Germans, unless he chooses to either renew the fight, or fight a delaying action further west. I really setup for this, and have quite a bit to bring to the table. I've gotta have a strong UK, since the Reds are bleeding to death on the Finns... :p

[Mantis]

This message isn't a thread, it's a forum all by itself.

[Kraut]

Originally posted by Mantis

The results of all this discussion was the creation of the Persian bufferzone. Perhaps also adding in a restriction on German units would be too much? I'd prefer no Persia, but a limit of Germans. Enough so that the Brits could make a fight of it with the outcome in doubt for both sides. But since we already have Persia in there, shouldn't we perhaps wait on this til at least a >few< people have gone this route, just to see what the results of the newest chages are before we go and change it all again?

I have 2 EA games going, one as Axis and one as Allied, both 1.7 and both around turn 100 with russia at war.

In my Axis game I invaded Russia a little unprepared in mid '40 with the limited goal to advance as far as possible with as limited casaulties as possible. I caught my opponent relatively uprepared in Persia were he was busy mopping up the Persian troops.
I forgot that my attack started the event activated russian reinforcements and in spring '41 he held a pretty descent defence line far from Baku. In the last few turns I weakened his front and started Barbarossa... we'll see.
In my game as Allied I finished the Perisan pretty early in the game but left some corps in Persia. Dan shipped in almost the entire italian army and some german corps and attacked with overwhelming numbers. I railed down my sparse reinforcements and try to hold him as long as possible but it's to early to tell how good I'm doing.

Anyway, without the Persian exclusion zone Baku would already be in immediate danger!

[SkyVon]

Originally posted by Mantis
This message isn't a thread, it's a forum all by itself.

LOL, this thread alone has advanced several of you to Trooper level already.

[Chuck?]

yes it has

[Chuck?]

especially for Mantis

[SkyVon]

And some guy named "Chuck"

[SkyVon]

Mark, I just emailed the fighter info to you...can't believe it was 110 pages! and almost 3.5 meg. Of course, all those plane pics I put in might of had something to do with the size of the file. Finding pics of some of those planes...like the Yugo's IK-2...were a bit of a challenge.

Hope that info helps :)

[Ming]

Originally posted by Chuck


It doesn't look good for Ming. The only thing I can suggest is for him to land those Germany corp in your rear at Alexandria if that's a possiblity. Otherwise a withdrawl to the west might be the best move.



In typical Italian fashion I remain unconcerned. I've got. . . plans. . . I'm not through yet!!! I have only begun to fight!!!
I'll just need some reinforcements as the British outnumber our forces nearly 10 to 1.


Mantis, I've had a crazy weekend. I'll try to get a turn to you tonight, then normal schedule will resume.

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Ming




In typical Italian fashion I remain unconcerned. I've got. . . plans. . . I'm not through yet!!! I have only begun to fight!!!
I'll just need some reinforcements as the British outnumber our forces nearly 10 to 1.

Yup, sounds Italian to me... :D


Mantis, I've had a crazy weekend. I'll try to get a turn to you tonight, then normal schedule will resume.

No rush, Ming, take your time.

[SkyVon]

To calm Mantis;

After doing my work on the air units in TOAW and EA, I learned more than I wanted to know.

I learned that there are many more errors in the TOAW release dates than I first thought. I learned that there are some planes modeled that never made it past testing. One plane in particular only had a production run of....ONE! And that one crashed in testing :P

I also saw some ommissions and errors with the plane usage for EA. If they were all corrected, would the play balance change dramatically? I think not. In fact, I think in the long run, you'd find the Axis player facing a dilema as to how to spread his fighters...as it was in real life. You would also see German air superiority where and when he wants it...at the cost of losing it at another theatre.

Example: In EA, after reviewing the real French Air TOE vs the games, I found the French to be under represented. There were also not enough British planes AND not enough 109's for the Germans. Having said that, at the start of the war in the west the Allies did AND SHOULD have air superiroity...for about 1 turn. Thats because the French planes were...crap, and their replacement rate was even worse. Once the French are eliminated, the air war between the Brits and the Germans should be fairly even. With an INCREASED Brit replacement rate on aircraft, they should hold up fine. It is this increased replacement rate that allows the Brits to stay alive.

As I type this the Soviets situation nags at me. What, if any, air shock bonus do the Germans receive when they select the Barbarossa TO?

If anyone else wants to see the data I sent to Mark, just let me know and I'll be happy to send it to you. You'll need Word 2002 though to view it.

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by SkyVon
As I type this the Soviets situation nags at me. What, if any, air shock bonus do the Germans receive when they select the Barbarossa TO?


none. the allies recieve 4 turns of airshock 50. Essentially this is 4 turns with the entire allied AF on rest because if they try and fight they'll get massively raped.


If anyone else wants to see the data I sent to Mark, just let me know and I'll be happy to send it to you. You'll need Word 2002 though to view it. [/B]

danst31@email.com

[Mantis]

I'd like to get it too, but I'd need it converted to rich text, or wordpad, or something along those lines.

[Kraut]

Originally posted by SkyVon
If anyone else wants to see the data I sent to Mark, just let me know and I'll be happy to send it to you. You'll need Word 2002 though to view it.

Stefan.Rosendorf@hamburg.de please :D

[SkyVon]

Dan, your mail box is full...empty some trash then let me know and I'll resend that file to you :)

Mantis, I'll see what I can do but with all the pics and excel charts, not sure how it will come out in a txt format.

[Chuck?]

SkyVon,

Send me a copy too. I can put it up on my website and people can download it if their mailboxes are full.

[Dan Neely]

there's space now. I'd forgotten to take MIMEbloat into consideration when freeing up space.

[Kraut]

Originally posted by SkyVon
Dan, your mail box is full...empty some trash then let me know and I'll resend that file to you :)

Mantis, I'll see what I can do but with all the pics and excel charts, not sure how it will come out in a txt format.

I've already send Mantis a RichText version of the file but I had to remove all images. With images included Word produced a 137MB monster file !! (38MB packed)
Without the images it was 1,1 MB and 65kb ZIP packed :D