View Full Version : 'Barbarossa' delay and other minor changes
Mark Stevens
20 Oct 02, 12:52
What is the consensus on cancelling the Axis Theatre Option to declare 'Operation Barbarossa'? I don't think that triggering it immediately following a German attack on Russia is appropriate, because very few Allied Players will have lined up along the border, with all their armour and planes well forward, to be encircled and destroyed as actually occured in June 1941.
Equally well, we hadn't intended that it be retained until the Germans reach the gates of Moscow, thus guaranteeing its capture, or at least countering the Axis winter shock penalty.
I was thinking of something like it must be used within six turns - one and a half months - of the invasion, otherwise an Event will be triggered to cancel the Option. That should allow even the Axis infantry to have reached the main Red Army line. Comments?
While I'm at it, I'll add the missing Italian tanks spotted by Chuck, and re-icon the British. Something like most of the UK-based Regular Army and some of the RAF disappear on a British surrender, but not the Middle East, African and Canadian units, and not the guerillas, partisans and Commandos in the UK. Maybe a few other particularly high quality units like the Airborne units, Royal Marines and Guards Armoured Division as well. The Royal Navy definitely planned to sail overseas, so they'll remain as well. Again, comments welcome.
I've also redrawn the railway lines in the Syria - Iraq - Iran region, based on the map in Churchill's memoirs. Doesn't make a huge difference, but it'll be good to know they're accurate.
Anything else that can be addressed easily, or bugs that have been spotted? (I'm still not ready to completely redo the land or air OOBs - sorry SkyVon!)
------------------------------
"We have underestimated the Russian Colossus... At the beginning we reckoned with some 200 enemy divisions and we have already identified some 360."
Chief of the OKH Halder's War Diary, mid-August 1941.
Siberian HEAT
20 Oct 02, 13:28
A 6 week buffer might be just about right. If the Reds deploy forward they might slow the Axis advance, but will certainly have their units chewed up by the fresh attackers. If they deploy too far back they allow a fresh Axis thrust, to be complemented by an invigorating Barbarossa option.
They have to find that fine line between delay and retreat...without having to fear a Barbarossa bonus being delivered while in front of Red Square! The 6 week window almost insures the option will expire before the Axis reaches Moscow...more in line with reality.
EDITED: I knew what you meant Mark, I just wrote it wrong!
Mark Stevens
20 Oct 02, 14:04
Sorry, my earlier post was a bit misleading: what I mean is that 'Barbarossa' will automatically be triggered after six turns if it hasn't already been chosen, NOT that it disappears altogether!
That would be a little unkind.
Dan Neely
20 Oct 02, 14:14
edited in responce to Marks clarification.
Originally posted by Mark Stevens
While I'm at it, I'll add the missing Italian tanks spotted by Chuck, and re-icon the British. Something like most of the UK-based Regular Army and some of the RAF disappear on a British surrender, but not the Middle East, African and Canadian units, and not the guerillas, partisans and Commandos in the UK. Maybe a few other particularly high quality units like the Airborne units, Royal Marines and Guards Armoured Division as well. The Royal Navy definitely planned to sail overseas, so they'll remain as well. Again, comments welcome.
I'd argue against leaving the paras and guards division after a successful sealion. IF it's being carried out, it will almost certainly be done in 1940, the paradivs and gaurds tank div are all deployed in late 42/43. If sealion was carried out, they'd never be formed because with England under axis control there wouldn't be large numbers of Englishmen available to recruit to form them. I agree with leaving most of the middleeast and naval units alone, but would suggest zapping the supply unit to simulate the degraded supply situation with only the commonwealth available to support the troops. Re the RAF, how much were you planning to disband? I'd suggest whatever fraction was historically based in Africa, but don't know how much that was, and to bias the remaining units to use disproportionately more US equiptment, or alternatively withdraw all of the existing RAF and deploy Free RAF units without slots for any latewar british equiptment, because it would never be produced.
Anything else that can be addressed easily, or bugs that have been spotted? (I'm still not ready to completely redo the land or air OOBs - sorry SkyVon!)
Corfu/Eoubea/Isle of Man/Channel Islands start as axis owned, should be allied. Izbiza/Majorica start as allied owned, should be axis.
I know you don't want to rwork the OOBs yet, butcould you at least change the deployment of the panzer corps so several with 38t's are active from the start instead of not appearing until barbarossa (simply swapping deploy dates between several oob1 and oob2 corps would work) the 38t was used extensively in 39/40 but the current deployment schedule doesn't have any corps using them arriving until 41.
Dan Neely
20 Oct 02, 14:36
a few things that occured to me as soon as I hit send.
Put a few 1000 HR AT- squads in the inventory from the start to provide the US with some replacements before tun 172, a historical entry will have the US active begining turn 128. Alternatively give the 1st batch of US corps normal rifle squads. Also, shouldn't the US get at least 1 fighter/bomber unit from the start? the USAAF didn't magically spring into existance after 1942. :-)
Put a few HQs and a naval unit in the latewar France OOB. none of the starting HQs reconstitute so it's entirely possible for the french to run out. As for the naval unit IMO it's reasonable to assume that the french would continue building their fleet if they weren't crushed. IIRC part of the Vichy fleet is ships completed after the French surrendered.
the bridge in 114/73 (pripet marsh) is unrepairable if destroyed because only amphibious units can enter a flooded marsh hex without a road.
Bulgarian garrison at the port of Varna.
Change the axis poland OOB so that the reconstituting corps aren't the same ones that are deployed from the start. There's no reason to send units into a reconstitution loop unncessarily.
On a related note, most of the allied minors have a few allied aid units sceduled to deploy after the historical splatting date. IMO these would make more sense to use as reconstituting units if the nation in question managed to hold off the axis onslaught than ones that historically were ground into dust in a few weeks never to return.
Originally posted by Mark Stevens
Sorry, my earlier post was a bit misleading: what I mean is that 'Barbarossa' will automatically be triggered after six turns if it hasn't already been chosen, NOT that it disappears altogether!
I'll second Marks idea; while it's a great strategic GAME plan to save & use this shock event as an "Ace in the Hole" whenever you like it clearly takes away from it's intended purpose.
Kerry
Ah HAH!! A year later, but I'm finally getting my way and we're going to limit Barbarossa! It was worth it all!
Everyone! Banana dance!!
:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
Since one of the main effects from Barbarossa is air shock, and this was only going to work for a few days, I suggest you limit its availability to ONE turn after a DOW by Germany. I also suggest that a DOW by Russia should remove this TO. Perhaps the air shock portion of this TO can last one turn while the supply and ground attack bonus last the designed amount?
To go six turns is to assume that a full month and a half after fighting has started that the Soviet planes would still be lined up in neat rows waiting to be strafed. This would not have happened.
The surprise attack and destruction thereof of Soviet aircraft at the start of Barbarossa can be compared to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Also, the vast majority of ac destroyed in the early stages of this campaign was in the first few DAYS.
For those interested, I will elaborate (i.e. bore you) on the early air war in Russia.
In one day, 66 Soviet airfields were completely destroyed. In one day, 1,811 Russian planes had been destroyed -- 322 by flak and German fighters; 1,489 on the ground. The Luftwaffe lost only 35 ac - a few of them to their own SD-2 4 lb frag bombs ("Devil's eggs") that had an unpleasant habit of getting stuck in the magazine and blew up at the slightest shock.
The initial strike consisted of 500 high alt bombers (88's & 111's), 270 dive bombers (87s) and 480 fighters (109s). This against 7,500 Russian ac (there was another 4,500+ in the interior and Far East).
At this time, the Soviet AF (VVS - VoennoVozdushnie Sily) was undergoing a huge transition in ac, training and organization. Regiments of appx 60 ac were replacing squadrons of 20-30 ac. Five regs would make an air division, which were in turn attached to (in the typically brilliant Soviet military mind) the ground armies.
By June, only 20% of the new planes had arrived, replacing the outdated I-15s and I-16s. Which, btw, were no longer being manufactured.
In addition, there were few operational airfields near the front, thus each field was over-crowded, with all the planes, literally, parked wingtip to wingtip at the time of the attack.
The initial attack lasted only a few minutes, with those SD-2's doing horrendous damage. One Soviet air commander was said to have stood in the middle of his base and cried while the attack was taking place...all of his planes engulfed in flames.
The first attack took place at 3:15 am while a formal DOW by Germany to the Soviets did not happen until 5:30 am.
...ok, wake-up, the babble is over...
You can see from the above that any axis Air Shock bonus caused by the Barbarossa TO can ONLY be on the same turn that an AXIS DOW was declared.
The biggest problem to duplicating this is that it is very easy for the Allied player to park his air units far away in rest mode. However, if we are to continue this game in a historical/non-historical manner, you cannot penalize an allied player doing the above no more than you can penalize an axis player that attacks through Switzerland.
The current air shock penalty is 50% over 4 turns. Maybe an air shock of 10% over 1 turn would be better.
I was thinking more like 50% for 1 turn.
It doesn't really make all that much difference, in the long run. The Russians can't stand toe to toe with the German AF for ages to come. Having all your air active and in range is just asking to not have an air force. With or without Barbarossa air shock.
Since it really doesn't affect things much anyways, if it takes any events at all to do it, I'd say leave it the way it is. The main reason that the Russians got kicked was the 'largest air force' in the world was a bunch of crap. A class of grade 1 kids making paper gliders all day would have been as effective against the Luftwaffe in this stage of the game. I'm all for historical accuracy, but this one doesn't seem to impact the game much at all, and I wouldn't want to waste even a single precious event on it. If it can be (and needs to be) changed without costing a single event, go for it!
Actually, a smart Soviet player will know the air shock is coming, and will be sure to avoid the skies. Since there is really no way to 'force' him to commit units to certain death, he'll preserve all his forces, waiting for the shock to end.
Too gamey.
I say leave the air shock alone. he still survives (avoids) with his air, but at least this way he'll have to hide for several turns to ensure he 'misses' it. Fair payback.
the soviet 1942 tanks (turn 141-159) are all sheduled to appear around moscow. By than this territory could very well be axis controlled and the tanks wont appear.
It would be better for those tanks to appear at the Urals where the soviets had redeployed their tank-factories to.
Panzerpelle
22 Oct 02, 06:33
Make most of soviet airforce into Garrison deployed historically and ungarrison using one event when the Germans DOW or The Soviets DOW on Germany. Soory it can only be done using up a couple of events...
Dan Neely
22 Oct 02, 08:48
instead of garrisonning the AF, why not simply deploy a large chunk of it the same turn that war is declared. It wouldn't cost any events, and would leave a big chunk near the front to get thrashed.
RE tanks maybe move some of them, but IMO the loss of deployment/reconstitution hexes is a decent simulation of declining recruitment/production as the Germans overrun more and more of the country. WIth that in mind, a decent number probabally should be shifted to enter in hte causcus area becuase the loss of baku would strangle the soviet economy.
Originally posted by Dan Neely
instead of garrisonning the AF, why not simply deploy a large chunk of it the same turn that war is declared. It wouldn't cost any events, and would leave a big chunk near the front to get thrashed.]
:confused:
What's the point here? If you just want the Soviets to end up with little or no AC why bother to even deploy them? Just don't have them show up at all= same result!
But this comes back to my favorite topic, are we playing a historical recreation of WWII or a SIMULATION of WWII?
A recreation- then just say the Soviet AF is wiped out, why even give them to the Soviet player if he'll never see/use them?
A simulation- then allow the Soviet player to use and place them as he see's fit within the game confines.
I thought the point of playing these games was to see what WE could do as commander if placed in the same situation with the same equipment. If you don't want the player to have any say on what happens to his units then don't even put them in the game in the first place. I like the game as it is concerning the Soviet AF. Leave it to die or move it to live, players choice.
[/QUOTE]
RE tanks maybe move some of them, but IMO the loss of deployment/reconstitution hexes is a decent simulation of declining recruitment/production as the Germans overrun more and more of the country. WIth that in mind, a decent number probabally should be shifted to enter in hte causcus area becuase the loss of baku would strangle the soviet economy. [/QUOTE]
If this is just a random deployment area then move the hexes back unless they were built in the Moscow area. They didn't just magically appear there.
What's the "strategic" or main reason they appear? Is it to give the Soviets the tanks they recieved historically? If the tanks were railed in from the Urals then they should appear near the Urals. I don't think just selecting a hex to show up in and then saying "oh well you lose them" when it's overrun makes sense when they were not built in that hex. And if Moscows overrun then the Soviet player is in dire straights and he could probably use a few reiniforcements. :whlchr:
Kerry
:D
I think we can pretty much lust leave the air question alone. Everyone had a point or two, but it all pretty much adds up to a hill of beans. I'm not 'judging' the sides in the debate, just making an observation.
Man-behind-the-keyboard interviews:
Shane; as the Russian player, do you have a problem with leaving the air exactly as it is now?
"No. People are talking about putting chunks of my airforce out to die, halving it, not putting it out at all. From my Commie position, I'm truly much happier having the AF available to me from the get go, in case I attack Finland, etc. When the air shock comes, if I'm smart, and patient, I can escape any major disasters to my AF. The Allies have to vote - Leave It!"
Thank you. Now, Shane, clear your mind, and consider this from the Axis perspective. Do you want the air shock to stay as it is now?
"Well, this one's a no-brainer. :stop: Any and all of these changes are going to limit my airshock to less turns than it is now. Leave it alone."
Well, there you have it. It really doesn't make a diff, either way.
Mantis, I disagree with you. My point was that an air shock of four turns was three turns too long...and any air shock after the first turn of the campaign wasn't right either. Changing this would not require a new event, just change the duration from four to one. After this time, the Luftwaffe can still easily beat the current Soviet AF anyways, as it should and did.
Taking away the option for the Soviets to blow a bridge or two in the dawn turns of the campaign isn't fair.
Chuck has taught me (the hard way) the importance of bridge removal :p
Dan Neely
22 Oct 02, 17:06
Originally posted by Kerry
RE tanks maybe move some of them, but IMO the loss of deployment/reconstitution hexes is a decent simulation of declining recruitment/production as the Germans overrun more and more of the country. WIth that in mind, a decent number probabally should be shifted to enter in hte causcus area becuase the loss of baku would strangle the soviet economy.
If this is just a random deployment area then move the hexes back unless they were built in the Moscow area. They didn't just magically appear there.
What's the "strategic" or main reason they appear? Is it to give the Soviets the tanks they recieved historically? If the tanks were railed in from the Urals then they should appear near the Urals. I don't think just selecting a hex to show up in and then saying "oh well you lose them" when it's overrun makes sense when they were not built in that hex. And if Moscows overrun then the Soviet player is in dire straights and he could probably use a few reiniforcements. :whlchr:
Kerry
:D [/B]
The reason for having deployment hexes placed somewhat forward of the urals is that the tank factories didn't operate in a vacume, they were dependent on iron mined in one point, oil pumped from a second, and men conscripted from a 3rd. IF the russians were hammered back to the urals and a thin strip reaching out to stalingrad with the rest of hte country overran, they wouldn't be able to produce anything approaching the historical amount of armor, or raise a coresponding number of riflemen. The effect is only poorly modeled in this scenario, moscow results in a 20% drop in production but asside from a few supply shifts and reconstitution (some units are set to constitute in murmansk, others in the causcus area) this is only modeled to a limited extent. I'd have to dig through the Braunschweig notes to be sure, but IIRC the Baku area was responsible for 3/4ths of the total soviet oil production, and it's loss would have a catastrophic effect on the soviet war economy which a mere -4 supply shift doesn't even begin to match in effect. Having a signifigant fraction of soviet production deploy in areas forward of the urals is the only way I can see to model the effect without using a large number of nonexistant events.
Sounds good enough for me Dan. Having it explained logically always makes more sense than "because I said so!":D
Originally posted by SkyVon
Mantis, I disagree with you. My point was that an air shock of four turns was three turns too long...and any air shock after the first turn of the campaign wasn't right either. Changing this would not require a new event, just change the duration from four to one. After this time, the Luftwaffe can still easily beat the current Soviet AF anyways, as it should and did.
Agreed! :clap:
Taking away the option for the Soviets to blow a bridge or two in the dawn turns of the campaign isn't fair.
Chuck has taught me (the hard way) the importance of bridge removal :p
ALLIES BLOWING BRIDGES!!! :shock:
Somebody revive Mantis, I'm sure he's fallen over backwards in his chair. :laugh:
Stand by for a lengthy anti-allies bridge bombing discourse, and now may I present... Mantis. :D
Mark Stevens
22 Oct 02, 17:53
Dan, to my amazement I agree with virtually all of your comments in your earlier message in this thread.
So I've implemented/am working on...
reiconing the British so that the bulk of the Regular Army and RAF that start in the UK disappear if the UK surrenders (white on brown)
I think that some - less than half - of the RAF should continue in being, as long-range planes can fly away, and small fighters can be shipped out more easily than, say, an infantry corps. There were definitely elaborate plans for the Royal Navy, key officials and scientists, military commanders &etc. to retreat to the Empire and Commonwealth - factories in the US, Canada and the Middle East could have been built/converted to continue manufacturing British-designed aircraft.
moved a couple of air units into the Africa Formation so they'll reconstitute in Cairo
added a small naval group and two HQs to the Late French Formation, all reconstituting
shifted the production of HR AT- squads to begin around historical US Entry, and reduced the overall numbers to compensate
added one bomber and fighter group to the starting US forces
used the panzer corps containing 35 & 38ts to start the game and be the first reinforcements - for some reason we appear to have gone for the exact reverse in the earlier scenarios
changed the Pripet Marshes slightly - no more unrepairable bridges, but a few more flooded swamps and some jungle hexes - I'm not sure that our current depiction of the area really conveys just what difficult terrain it was
Bulgarian Garrison in Varna
tidied up ownership of those small islands
I'm looking at making the minor nation's reinforcements the ones that are eligible to reconstitute, although we still need to take into account that the Rumanians and Italians, for example, fought for four years and suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties, yet kept coming back for more. The small Allied minors are easier.
I'm making 'Barbarossa' trigger automatically after six turns if it hasn't been chosen by then. On the air shock question above, I think the Germans should get the bonus, but the Soviet Player should have the option to hold the Red Air Force in reserve. Forcing it to appear and be massacred at the start of the invasion is historically accurate, but by the same token we could lock down the Red Army, or make it appear, in forward positions to be slaughtered.
I suppose that we can move some Soviet tanks to the Urals to simulate the factories there, but we need to leave enough in Western Russia so that the Axis gets a benefit by occupying territory.
Dan Neely
22 Oct 02, 18:49
Originally posted by Mark Stevens
Dan, to my amazement I agree with virtually all of your comments in your earlier message in this thread.
:surprise: :shock: :surprise:
Does Nostrodamus have some terrifying prediction about what this means?
used the panzer corps containing 35 & 38ts to start the game and be the first reinforcements - for some reason we appear to have gone for the exact reverse in the earlier scenarios
Not all of them I hope. oob1 contains pz1 and pz2s, oob2 35/38ts. That's why I only suggested changing half of them, not a complete swap. having all of oob1 appear after oob2 will be just as problematical IMO as the current situation.
I'm looking at making the minor nation's reinforcements the ones that are eligible to reconstitute, although we still need to take into account that the Rumanians and Italians, for example, fought for four years and suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties, yet kept coming back for more. The small Allied minors are easier.
I think the Hungarians, Romainians, and Finns are fine as they are. I won't comment on the Croat and Bulgarians because I've never had a game go until Tito was making a major nuisance of himself so I don't know how durable they are in game. Unless I'm mistaken the italians only have 1 reconstituting corp, and could probabally use a few more. Depending on how many you add, the post surrender Italian corps might become unneeded because of reconstitution looped units, but that's something for playtesting to determine. I've made my opinion about the looping allied minors clear numerous times and see no need to reiterate it again.
Mark Stevens
23 Oct 02, 15:36
It surprised me too Dan, but I guess that every now and then all of the planets in the Solar System line up: not often, but it happens!
The starting strengths of the various panzer corps range from 5 through to 9. Even some of the stronger ones contain Pz I & IIs, which I think were retained for reconnaisance and rear echelon security.
I think the best thing to do is have the initial 5s as the starting units, then bring on the weaker ones, and finish with the really big boys later in the war. That seems to make the most sense.
They'll all be affected by losses, supply levels, new models, etc. as the game progresses.
I'll have units containing some 35 & 38ts at the start, if it's consistent with the above, which I can see that it is.
Now let's get back to disagreeing with each other!
Mark Stevens
23 Oct 02, 15:46
Bridge blowing is too easy, I know. Even the weaker bombers seem to be equipped with radar-guided missiles in this particular respect. In 1940 the RAF's Advanced Striking Force got itself shot to pieces trying to knock out the German pontoon bridges across the Meuse, let alone the more solid ones.
Historically - I love that word to shelter behind - the Allied bomber forces were committed to the strategic campaign from fairly early on, which isn't possible in TOAW, and it took orders from the very top to make them divert to smashing up the French railway system prior to Overlord, although once they did it was very effective.
I suppose that bridge attacks can be seen as a sort of strategic option, in that it hampers supply and movement, although it obviously has great tactical applications in this scenario as well.
Short of another House Rule, I guess we'll have to grin and bear it, and keep your engineers and railway repair units where they'll do most good.
Dan Neely
23 Oct 02, 18:31
RE most allied bombers being used only for strategic bombing there is a simple solution. Don't deploy them. :-) Granted that'll cause problems for the few times that they were used against bridges and in combat support. The only workaround for that I see would be to have them yellowlined a majority of the time, and only temporarily activate them via TOs. Is a repeating TO doable? eg returns X turns after it was last used.
a 3rd option would be to add a number of 'civilian' engineer units to repair bridges and houserule them away from the front line. Still a houserule, but more elegant than a 'no more than X bridge attacks/turn' rule.
The great freeable event hunt: Anyone uninterested in the details can skip to the last paragraph.
206 (vichy control of casablanca) could be replaced with annother guerilla. 207 (vichy control of Damascus) is a second possiblity, you'd need to change the vichy forces deploy on event 85 (surrender of France) instead of 207 like they do now. 89 (vichy control of oran) could be replaced with a guerilla as well. I suppose 203 (vichy damascus) could be gobbled too, but that would eliminate all messages annoucing the formation of vichy.
Making the resume offensive against france option automatic would free a number of events. 253(shock 130) would be redundant since changing the event that goes from 90 to 115 shock after the case yellow pause could go directly to 130. 255 (resume canceled if paris falls) would be freed, as would the 2 events used to create and remove the TO itself (I didn't see them while clicking through the list). Since Case Yellow can't be used in 39 anymore I can't see a reason for waiting anylonger.
Making Portugul enter with 100% probaility instead of 85% when spain activates (is there any axis player who *doesn't* smash them to prevent a possible entry in responce to the US dow?) would release several events.
This was a bit complex so I've listed everything involved. format is number - trigger -effect - description
14 - us enters
19 - portugul enters
25 - spain enters
369 - event 19 - cancels 373 - port at war cancels activation
373 - turn 999 - activates 19 - port enters war
374 - event 25 - activates 373 - 85% chance after spain enters
378 - event 14 - activates 373 - 50% chance after US enters
382 - event 25 - activates 383 - axis declare war TO
383 - event 383 - activates 19 - activates port
384 - event 19 - cancel 382 - remove TO
make 374 100% like suggested above. then 382,383,384 are the TO and could go completely. I think changing 374 and 378 to activate event 19 would also free 369 and 373 at the cost of a single spurious message if Spain enters and the 50% check on US entry passes as well. OTOH the event engine is arcane enough that there might be a issue I'm not aware of.
375 and 376 govern portuguese surrender and could possibly be sacrificed as well. Spain is unlikely to be able to take Lisbon successfully the 1st turn, and the allies will most likely pull the 3rd div into Lisbon to maximize axis losses when they do attack. Speaking for myself I'd always encircle it completely to get evaps instead of retreats if I didn't take in the 1st turn.
More events could be freed by consolidating LL. at a minimum the tanks, AC, and destroyers could be deployed using the same event, and the 1st batch of tanks and the aircraft replacements could be combined and disbanded as a single unit.
239 - EEV = 50 - news - LL begins
240 - 239 - activate 242 - ac text
242 - t999 - disband AC unit and AC unit appears
244 - 242- EEV -= 15 - US reassured (AC)
421 - 239 - activate 422 - naval LL
422 - t999 - EEV -= 15 - destroyer deploys
424 - 422 - supply +4
483 - 239 - activate 485 - tank text
485 - 486 - disband 1st group of tanks
486 - 485 - EEV -= 15 - tanks deploy
487 - 486 - disband 2nd group of tanks after 20-40 turns
I think I found all of them, but since they were scattered around I just used the events marked in the LL formation as keys to search around.
Looking at it, I think something like this work
239 - EEV = 50 - news - LL begins. set destoryers, air unit, and tank divs to deploy off of this.
244 - 239- EEV -= 45 - US reassured by aid to allies
424 - 239 - supply +4
485 - 239 - Combine the 1st group of tanks and the aircraft into 1 unit and dsiband it here
487 - 239 - disband 2nd group of tanks after 20-40 turns
5 events instead of 11. 240,242, 421,422,483,486 freed.
Total found: Fully replacing vichy hex ownership deployment with guerillas 3 or 4. 4 leaves no message annoucing the creation of vichy in the news. Making resume offensive automatic following case yellow 4. Making Portugul enter 100% of the time instead of 85% when spain activates 3 or 5, the latter would result in a spurious message if Spain entered and the 50% on US entry check passed as well. Consolidating LL 6 events. for a grand total of 16-19 unless I misunderstood some part of the EE voodoo.
Mark Stevens
23 Oct 02, 18:50
Dan,
You're probably right - certainly the Lend-Lease would be easy to consolidate.
The problem would then be what to do with all these Events? I've had a hell of a job - despite all the help I got, and the various design utilities players sent me - to get 1.8 right: literally weeks of work, more-or-less every spare hour I got, and that was just a few, relatively straightforward changes. Sometimes I felt like giving up on it.
It would be a brave man indeed who tried to integrate a further - let's say it's only twelve - extra Events into an already very complex, interconnected Event Engine. Not trying to make excuses, but a change of that magnitude would probably justify a complete rewrite of the whole thing.
If we can decide on what needs to be changed or added - and I'm 99% sure that I can speak for Ulver on this - anyone's welcome to try, and perhaps call it 1.9 or something.
Was it Ming - apologies if not - who tried to design a specifically Eastern Crusade version and gave up in despair?
Before I'm trampled in the rush, I would urge anyone who fancies a crack at it to use one of the design utilities, and playtest it to death before posting it.
I'll rumble along with 1.8(a) for the time being, but if anyone decides to have a go and wants any advice, I'd be happy to oblige.
Dan Neely
23 Oct 02, 19:43
Originally posted by Mark Stevens
[B]Dan,
You're probably right - certainly the Lend-Lease would be easy to consolidate.
The problem would then be what to do with all these Events?
Honestly I'm not sure, but with the event list full I couldn't justify any suggestions that consumed events without suggesting where to find them. Once I started I figured I might as well find as many as I could. A repeating TO to temporarily divirt allied heavy bombers from strategic (yellow lined formation) to tactical air support would be one possibility. My personal wishlist iis topped by a latewar axis naval buildup following a successful conquest of Russia: Fleets large enough to rival the allies, and 1.5+ years down the line an Overlord type TO to give the Germans a shot at complete victory
Regarding the different strengths of the German Tank corps the 3 ones with signifigantly higher ratings start with a full complement of AT guns, the other corps don't. Changing them to 0/168, the 75/88mm guns weren't build until well after the corps are deployed, would scale them down to the same size as the other corps.
Mark Stevens
23 Oct 02, 20:37
I think that the suggestions for a late war German naval build-up, subject to their completely dominating Continental Europe, are just about feasible, but it would be a devil of a job to design into the current Event List and I'm afraid that it's a bridge too far for me.
I don't know what scale of 88mm guns the panzer divisions (or corps) had in 1939, but they were definitely being produced - according to Len Deighton's 'Blitzkreig' 88s had successfully been used in the anti-tank role as early as the Spanish Civil War (estimated 90% of their fire was in an anti-tank role rather than its originally intended anti-aircraft role), and it was Rommel's 7th Panzer Division that used its 88s to break up the British counter-attack at Arras in May 1940. Possibly we've got too many, too concentrated, but - another of my favourite excuses - it's a 'big picture' game.
Originally posted by Dan Neely
The reason for having deployment hexes placed somewhat forward of the urals is that the tank factories didn't operate in a vacume, they were dependent on iron mined in one point, oil pumped from a second, and men conscripted from a 3rd. IF the russians were hammered back to the urals and a thin strip reaching out to stalingrad with the rest of hte country overran, they wouldn't be able to produce anything approaching the historical amount of armor, or raise a coresponding number of riflemen. The effect is only poorly modeled in this scenario, moscow results in a 20% drop in production but asside from a few supply shifts and reconstitution (some units are set to constitute in murmansk, others in the causcus area) this is only modeled to a limited extent. I'd have to dig through the Braunschweig notes to be sure, but IIRC the Baku area was responsible for 3/4ths of the total soviet oil production, and it's loss would have a catastrophic effect on the soviet war economy which a mere -4 supply shift doesn't even begin to match in effect. Having a signifigant fraction of soviet production deploy in areas forward of the urals is the only way I can see to model the effect without using a large number of nonexistant events.
Why not marking the deployment hexes as production centers than the Axis can try to occupy these hexes thus preventing some soviet tanks from appearing and the soviet player can try to defend / reoccupy them to get the tanks.
All this can already be done by looking at the sheduled reinforcements and 'magically' knowing where the tanks will appear, why not make it part of the game ? It's just a little bit more logic and easier for both players to deploy their forces accordingly. :)
Hey Mark,
Take all the time you need on using those events and in play testing them. I vote for a little delay in it's release resulting in a better game than for a quick turn around only to see more changes.
I also vote for more randomizations than "this is the hex to take/avoid." Especially concerning Russia; Germany didn't have a clue as what was going on past the frontlines and not one concerning Soviet tank production or locations. Making the Axis have to take all important cities rather than just head for one hex not knowing where the Soviet tanks will come in is more appropriate for game play.
Dan Neely
24 Oct 02, 15:50
Originally posted by Kerry
I also vote for more randomizations than "this is the hex to take/avoid." Especially concerning Russia; Germany didn't have a clue as what was going on past the frontlines and not one concerning Soviet tank production or locations. Making the Axis have to take all important cities rather than just head for one hex not knowing where the Soviet tanks will come in is more appropriate for game play.
spread the entry out so that most "rear echlon" cities in russia have a few corps scheduled to deploy in them at some point.
Dan Neely
24 Oct 02, 19:49
Originally posted by Mark Stevens
I think that the suggestions for a late war German naval build-up, subject to their completely dominating Continental Europe, are just about feasible, but it would be a devil of a job to design into the current Event List and I'm afraid that it's a bridge too far for me.
I might take a whack at it, but I doubt I'll have the time until christmas. I might be able to make the event list changes sooner, but I wouldn't be able to do the validation, my pbems, and pass my classes; and I can't see making changes of that scale if I risked some smaller change made by Mark to fix the latest inadvertant bug forcing a restart on my part.
Originally posted by Dan Neely
I might be able to make the event list changes sooner, but I wouldn't be able to do the validation, my pbems, and pass my classes;
So skip the classes! :thumup: Where the hell are your priorities, man??
(shaking head)
:D
Originally posted by Mantis
So skip the classes! :thumup: Where the hell are your priorities, man??
(shaking head)
:D
I think he's already skipping the classes. He just needs to pass the test.
:whist:
Dan Neely
24 Oct 02, 22:26
Originally posted by Mantis
So skip the classes! :thumup: Where the hell are your priorities, man??
(shaking head)
:D
... skip classes ... fail courses ... flunk out ... endup working long hours in a low pay manufacturing job. Thanks but no thanks. I did that one summer for cash and was totally burned out by the time I got home.
Ya, I hear ya there... I once worked in a meat processing plant, and I almost killed myself from sheer boredom. I'm not good at dealing with braindead jobs. If it doesn't stimulate my mind, at least to some degree, I'm destined to quit or get myself fired...
Mark Stevens
27 Oct 02, 09:04
Dragging ourselves back from these painful tales of woe - I work for a bank in the City of London, don't particularly enjoy it,but you've got to keep the dosh rolling in - I've moved the Soviet Tank Corps OOB 2 reconstitution point to Omsk, to simulate the major trans-Ural factories, and I'll make the points for the other formations major industrial cities, in they're not already, with at least one set in Baku. The reason that the early Soviet reinforcements arrive scattered over the eastern half of Russia, many off of railway lines, is to avoid the allied Player being able to rail them in immediately to threatened areas. Soviet mobilisation in the early months of the invasion was pretty chaotic.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.