View Full Version : Europe Aflame after the loss of the USSR, or should I say, when the Allies surrender?
I was just readin in an AAR, over at Matrix, about a quote from Roosevelt (which I had heard before, but it struck me this time), in which he stated that if the Germans were to retake Antwerp the USA would raise 200 divisions.
Now, I'd imagine that 200 divisions might be a bit unrealistic, and the Germans were in their death throws, so it never came to pass.
Now, what if we were to apply that quote to a different situation?
What if, instead of Antwerp, Roosevelt was talking about the fall of the USSR?
Currently, with the fall of the USSR, we have an automatic US entry...Whooptie-do. The Anglo-Americans took three and a quarter years to make it to Berlin (which they didn't even do) while most of the German army was fighting the reds, with the USSR out and the Americans not showing up, in strength, until 108-128 turns aftert their entry, you're looking at a 0.5 chance of Allied victory. As far as I can gather, most of the time, if the USSR fall, the Allied player surrenders, because there really isn't much chance of victory after that.
So, what I was thinking, was, with all these nice new events :drool::yummy:, why not create another alternate history (like the Eastern Crusade)? With the fall of the USSR, Roosevelt and the Americans really get into gear, building a larger and mightier army than they actually did in WWII.
Obviously, we don't want to make the situation so favourable that the Allied player would purposely surrender the USSR for the bigger, better, American Army, but hell, we would need to ask something to give the Allies a chance after the fall of the USSR. We could start small, perhaps doubling US numbers from 15 total Corps to 30 and from 17 Armoured Divisisions to, well, maybe 30 (Obviously, this could be discussed). They could be deployed in the 'wave fashion, as the Americans are now, and the supply (which is +25 with the fall of the USSR) could be lowered accordingly to the fact that more Americans are entering the battle. As well, replacements would have to be adjusted (perhaps a disband of replacements with each wave).
Well, what do we think?
IIRC - the quote was 100 divisions if DDay failed or some such? (And that just might be realistic). Anyways...
First off, there need be no 'massive' delay. (A 'game balance' thing - it can be argued that the US started this gear-up as things grew grim for the Russians - ergo it started prior to the collapse, not the 'day after they surrender'). No, I'm not advocating 100 divs show up the next turn, but we could indeed accelerate the arrival.
I also agree that this should be looked at seriously. Just as there is an oft-discussed idea about the Germans being able to trigger the 'I killed Russia, gimme some sealift in a year to try and kill the UK' option, there should also be the massive US buildup option. We have the events, and it would make the scenario more enjoyable. I love EA because it's not just the same ol'
same ol'... I hate games where you are locked into Russia three turns prior to the scenario even starting... The strategic flexibility on EA is what makes the game. Adding this potential would greatly increase the appeal. And it isn't unrealistic to imagine that the Allies would fight on.
German manpower was limited regardless of winning/losing in the East. This is a reality no matter what alternate outcome the scenario produces. While it is indeed true that the Germans could (and did) produce many units from conquered populations, these units were of dubious quality at best. There was a finite amount of Jerries, and all the wishing in the world cannot change that fact.
Certainly, it would be no walk in the park, but I don't see why the Allies couldn't invade Russia from the south, come into Europe through Turkey, retake all of Africa, greatly expand the navy to make all of the Euro/Med coastline potential invasion sites, etc. The war would drag on much longer, but it would still be potentially do-able.
IIRC - the quote was 100 divisions if DDay failed or some such? (And that just might be realistic). Anyways...
First off, there need be no 'massive' delay. (A 'game balance' thing - it can be argued that the US started this gear-up as things grew grim for the Russians - ergo it started prior to the collapse, not the 'day after they surrender'). No, I'm not advocating 100 divs show up the next turn, but we could indeed accelerate the arrival.
I also agree that this should be looked at seriously. Just as there is an oft-discussed idea about the Germans being able to trigger the 'I killed Russia, gimme some sealift in a year to try and kill the UK' option, there should also be the massive US buildup option. We have the events, and it would make the scenario more enjoyable. I love EA because it's not just the same ol'
same ol'... I hate games where you are locked into Russia three turns prior to the scenario even starting... The strategic flexibility on EA is what makes the game. Adding this potential would greatly increase the appeal. And it isn't unrealistic to imagine that the Allies would fight on.
German manpower was limited regardless of winning/losing in the East. This is a reality no matter what alternate outcome the scenario produces. While it is indeed true that the Germans could (and did) produce many units from conquered populations, these units were of dubious quality at best. There was a finite amount of Jerries, and all the wishing in the world cannot change that fact.
Certainly, it would be no walk in the park, but I don't see why the Allies couldn't invade Russia from the south, come into Europe through Turkey, retake all of Africa, [I]greatly[I] expand the navy to make all of the Euro/Med coastline potential invasion sites, etc. The war would drag on much longer, but it would still be potentially do-able.
Good to have the biggest EA player around on side. :D
EDIT: And I'm sure if Mark is too busy to do the actual work involved in this, someone else with an ever growing amount of editor experience (ME!) would be willing to do the work.
Now there's a suggestion that might make a certain Brit smile... ;)
Now there's a suggestion that might make a certain Brit smile... ;)
Yeah, and then I'll just sneak in the other suggestions, whether he likes 'em or not!!! :P
Perhaps you can consider the following:
The US had 92 divisions serving in combat in WWII, and kept just about all of them up to strength. The army initially planned (in May 1942) to raise 187 divisions. So it certainly would be possible for the US to raise more divisions, at the expense of a smaller navy or air force.
Also, running the scenario a few years past 1945 will allow the off map US forces fighting Japan to appear, and will give the Allied player an interesting nuclear option!
It will also allow for new equipment types (especially for the Germans), and who's to say that with the Soviet Union beaten that the Nazis wouldn't have been more successful in raising and equipping scads of foreign troops...
It's starting to sound like Oceania vs Eurasia vs East Asia!
The US had 92 divisions serving in combat in WWII, and kept just about all of them up to strength. The army initially planned (in May 1942) to raise 187 divisions. So it certainly would be possible for the US to raise more divisions, at the expense of a smaller navy or air force.
Well, we're actually thinking of beefing up the Army, air force, and navy, to simulate the Americans actually starting to really worry, and getting closer to a real war-time economy.
Also, running the scenario a few years past 1945 will allow the off map US forces fighting Japan to appear, and will give the Allied player an interesting nuclear option!
It will also allow for new equipment types (especially for the Germans), and who's to say that with the Soviet Union beaten that the Nazis wouldn't have been more successful in raising and equipping scads of foreign troops...
Currently the scenario runs to March 11th, 1946.
A couple quick points:
1> I don't believe nukes will enter the picture, this is more a conventional warfare style campaign. (I hate nukes anyways :) ) IIRC, this is also in line with the original designer's intent. (ie - Mark).
2> Yesterday (Sunday) was my wife's birthday, so the weekend was quite busy. We've also been spending a good deal of time trying to get Teamspeak 2 set up... Gamesquad is hosting a webpage, forum and the TS2 software for my World of Warcraft guild, and we've been having alot of time invested in trying to get this up and running, so I don't have to do quite so much work on it manually. This is also eating skads of my time. Factor in the I have revived the Europe Aflame ICS at Armchair General, I am being trained in new systems etc at work, and you can see that there is very little free time for me at the moment. :D I'm trying to get my turns out (of which I owe many - apologies, gents) as well as get some time to go over thoughts on the future develoment with Veers for EA itself.
This last will be one of my top priorities for today!
Just want to add some thoughts.
How is the fall of Russia handled in EA? I mean, there should be some guerilla fighting in/from the Urals, maybe there should be a post Stalinistic regime under Chrustchov (or someone else) in the asiatic part of the Soviet Union.
On additional US divisions: Men and weapons (esp.with US industry) are collected relatively fast. The other thing is to train them..
Or the US would shift all offensive effort towards the ETO/MTO and conduct only some kind of active defence in the Pacific until more/new divisions are raised and trained.
On additional foreign axis troops. I see not so much a problem here. Think of Wlassow's Army (let them fight against partisans), the baltic and polish "volunteers", cossacks, carpathian people, add turkey, the SS could raise some obscure formations here and there while marionette regimes could raise their own people.
It would have been a dark age...
It's starting to sound like Oceania vs Eurasia vs East Asia!
Hehe..lol. 2+2=5
Also, running the scenario a few years past 1945 will allow the off map US forces fighting Japan to appear, and will give the Allied player an interesting nuclear option!
I don't know. Germany first was the strategy, so, if Germany had been soldiered on beyond the summer of 45 and the US would have seen little chance to achieve something decisive in a short time, guess who would have received a nasty present from Enola Gay..but as Mantis wants no nukes it doesn't matter anyway.
Nukes change the dynamic of the scenario far too much. It was never intended in the original vision for Europe Aflame, and the Pacific campaign doesn't enter in to the scenario whatsoever, beyond the potential for a very small force of Japanese to enter the theatre.
Keep in mind - this is almost a hyper-version of ATR, and the action is mostly limited to that same map area we're all so familiar with. Anything beyond that is mostly out of the scope of what we're trying to accomplish.
Mark Stevens
30 Apr 07, 19:44
"How is the fall of Russia handled in EA? I mean, there should be some guerilla fighting in/from the Urals, maybe there should be a post Stalinistic regime under Chrustchov (or someone else) in the asiatic part of the Soviet Union."
Currently it's assumed that with the loss of Moscow and Stalingrad the USSR collapses. The bulk of the Red Army will disappear. Three categories of troops fight on; the NKVD, the partisans, and the Red Navy (including the 'marine' garrisons).
The surrender also activates a new formation in the Urals, the 'White Russians', with an HQ, three infantry, two motorised, two mechanised and two artillery corps, one armoured division, and a fighter and bomber, about half of which reconstitute in Omsk. There's room for the corps to divide.
That should be enough to tie down a decent number of Axis units in the former USSR. Depending upon the overall situation (say, the Western Allies are already ashore in France) it might make for an interesting finish to the game. Generally, if the USSR collapses early enough, most players call it quits.
In my EC game with Francis, I took out Russia in turn 50, they surrendered in 51 (June 16th, 1940). The White Russian formation (in addition to the handful of regular army units that survived/were caught in the reconstitution loop/etc), are enough that a concentrated offensive utilizing every panzer I had, all my arty, AT guns, rail arty and uncountable infatry korps, could not break their lines in 1941 (his 'line' is the n/s hex row at the eastern map edge, and the hexes adjacent to them that are blocking the chokepoints). Granted, this would be different depending on how your game progresses. With the exception of the late-war panzers I received from taking the oil fields, my armor is still mostly 'early'. But the point remains - the White Russians are strong enough so that I won't fire a shell at them until another year or two has passed, and it's already June '42. (Turn 156).
(And before you ask, I did offer to end the game with Russia's fall... Also after France's fall... But Francis wants to see what the Allies can do once the US comes into its glory, and much to his credit, is playing it out to the last. :salute: )
Mantis:
Possibly post a .sal of this?
I'd like to take a look, eh? ;)
You've got it!
Note that I have concentrated virtually all the panzers that contain 'modern armor' in the east, opposite the White Russian's line. When the time is ripe (we're not in a big hurry! ;) ) we shall attempt to finish that which was begun a couple years back... :devious:
Menschenfresser
02 May 07, 21:01
I'd like to see a massive US build-up post-Soviet. And it would be interesting to also have a minimal reemergence of a Russian (mostly partisan) army. This could be done by gradually adding in modest guerrilla units to the Soviet side. Eventually, these would stretch the German army, forcing them to weaken their French defense or give up swaths of territory to partisans. After X many turns after the fall of the Soviet Union, if these partisans manage to recapture certain cities, real-ish units could appear. So that eventually, if played right, some serious Russian presence would return by the end of the scenario (that is if Russia isn't knocked out late in the war), but not near as serious as if the reds had not lost.
Coupled with an overly strong US, there would be a reason to keep playing after an early Russian death.
We might also consider having minor Allies, Commonwealth, etc contributing more units to Europe with the fall of Russia (India, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc). Not sure the realism here.
EDIT: Would be interesting to see various divisions from the Pan American Union.
EDIT: Would be interesting to see various divisions from the Pan American Union.
Correct me where wrong, but wasn't Argentina an axis sympathizer? Would not the fall of Russia tend to bring them in on the Axis side?
Sounds more like Mantis' version of the Ultimate game here, eh?
:paperbag:
You've got it!
Note that I have concentrated virtually all the panzers that contain 'modern armor' in the east, opposite the White Russian's line. When the time is ripe (we're not in a big hurry! ;) ) we shall attempt to finish that which was begun a couple years back... :devious:
Well then, MY hat is off to Francis! That's really got to look grim from his side, eh? :eek: Talk about 'takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin', Good Man, there!
I'd like to see a massive US build-up post-Soviet.
Glad to hear you like the idea. SHane and I are attempting to flesh it out as we speak.
And it would be interesting to also have a minimal reemergence of a Russian (mostly partisan) army. This could be done by gradually adding in modest guerrilla units to the Soviet side. Eventually, these would stretch the German army, forcing them to weaken their French defense or give up swaths of territory to partisans. After X many turns after the fall of the Soviet Union, if these partisans manage to recapture certain cities, real-ish units could appear. So that eventually, if played right, some serious Russian presence would return by the end of the scenario (that is if Russia isn't knocked out late in the war), but not near as serious as if the reds had not lost.
Interesting idea, I'll talk with Shane about it.
Coupled with an overly strong US, there would be a reason to keep playing after an early Russian death.
That's the idea we're driving with: To make EA playable after the fall of the USSR.
We might also consider having minor Allies, Commonwealth, etc contributing more units to Europe with the fall of Russia (India, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc). Not sure the realism here.
I agree, and already have some ideas for this written down.
EDIT: Would be interesting to see various divisions from the Pan American Union.
Correct me where wrong, but wasn't Argentina an axis sympathizer? Would not the fall of Russia tend to bring them in on the Axis side?
Sounds more like Mantis' version of the Ultimate game here, eh? :paperbag:
We'll have to do some research here.
Perhaps after the fall of the USSR we can have an X% chance of a South American war. The Axis can increase this chance by sacrificing X Infantry Corps, the Allies can do the same. (These Corps would be disbanded to be sent to SA.) The war in Europe would continue. X turns later the War in SA would end.
One of two ways to program this:
1)
If the Allies win the victorious, veteran troops from SA could start to be shipped to Europe to join the war there.
If the Axis win, the American forces would be wittled down some as they would either a) continue the war down there, or b) harbour some troops for Home Defence.
2)
The war always ends in favour of the Allies, it just has a variable time. The Axis sacrifice of X Inf Corps, instead of helping the chances of an Axis victory, has a chance of making the war in SA longer.
The idea being that the Axis are better off the longer the war lasts, as the greater amount of American troops will not become fully available until after the end of the SA war.
Opinions welcomed.
We'll have to do some research here.
Perhaps after the fall of the USSR we can have an X% chance of a South American war. The Axis can increase this chance by sacrificing X Infantry Corps, the Allies can do the same. (These Corps would be disbanded to be sent to SA.) The war in Europe would continue. X turns later the War in SA would end.
One of two ways to program this:
1)
If the Allies win the victorious, veteran troops from SA could start to be shipped to Europe to join the war there.
If the Axis win, the American forces would be wittled down some as they would either a) continue the war down there, or b) harbour some troops for Home Defence.
2)
The war always ends in favour of the Allies, it just has a variable time. The Axis sacrifice of X Inf Corps, instead of helping the chances of an Axis victory, has a chance of making the war in SA longer.
The idea being that the Axis are better off the longer the war lasts, as the greater amount of American troops will not become fully available until after the end of the SA war.
Opinions welcomed.
Sounds like beaucoup research to me, LOL! IIRC there's all sorts of rivalry extant in SA, and the whole 'sea-power' thing comes into immediate accendancy for me, as (again, iirc) part of the US sub hunt was based in Brazil, and further, movement of aircraft to Africa was done from Brazil as well.
An Axis backed Argentina could end up seeming like a major player, compared to it's nieghbors, eh?
Gonna half to check some of this out myself, befor I end up with foot-in-mouth disease, :clown:
Menschenfresser
03 May 07, 06:08
Here's the list of Pan American Union countries from Wiki:
* Bolivia
* Brazil (25 August 1942)
* Colombia
* Costa Rica
* Cuba
* Dominican Republic
* El Salvador
* Guatemala
* Haiti
* Honduras
* Mexico (1 June 1942)
* Nicaragua
* Panama
* United States of America
I figured some Central and Southern American countries were Axis sympathizers. I'm not sure I'd go the route of a war in the western hemisphere, but certainly some abstracted reaction.
Here's the list of Pan American Union countries from Wiki:
* Bolivia
* Brazil (25 August 1942)
* Colombia
* Costa Rica
* Cuba
* Dominican Republic
* El Salvador
* Guatemala
* Haiti
* Honduras
* Mexico (1 June 1942)
* Nicaragua
* Panama
* United States of America
I figured some Central and Southern American countries were Axis sympathizers. I'm not sure I'd go the route of a war in the western hemisphere, but certainly some abstracted reaction.
I just like to throw out ideas. :)
Correct me where wrong, but wasn't Argentina an axis sympathizer? Would not the fall of Russia tend to bring them in on the Axis side?
Sounds more like Mantis' version of the Ultimate game here, eh?
:paperbag:
Yes, but Brazil actually activated on the side of the Allies. And any 'Axis' troops appearing in the Americas would freak the USA out - I don't think Argentina would have lasted too long. US troops and/or supplies would have been in Brazil in no time.
Well then, MY hat is off to Francis! That's really got to look grim from his side, eh? :eek: Talk about 'takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin', Good Man, there!
I concur. He wouldn't stop after Russia fell, he wouldn't stop after France fell... He's indestructible! And man, am I getting sick of the 500 airstrikes I have to sit through every turn... :D
Even though I know it's not really damaging too much, it is demoralizing as hell!
As to an off-map war in S. America - this could be do-able, but I think Veer's option 2 is most realistic. The Allies would always win it.
The Axis could select one of three TO's:
Start S. American war with 1 korps, 2 korps, 3 korps. 1 korps gives you a chance of starting the war, which will delay (one/two?) US infantry corps for a period of some months. (4?) 2 korps guarantees the war, and ties down 3 US corps for 4 - 6 months. 3 korps guarantees the war, and ties down 4 US corps and an armored division for 6 months. The US gets the units at the end of such time, but the Axis units are gone.
Thoughts?
Consider further:
Much like Mark, I *never* want to see TOs that are no-brainers. They have to be somewhat situational; we don't want anything that will always be chosen, nor do we want something that will never be chosen.
Consider what I've outlined above... Would you take that option? Always, sometimes, never? What would it be dependant on? (Time, most likely). Were you to kill Russia in '41, maybe this is not such a good trade? Maybe in '43, you'd sometimes take it? And in 44 - 45, you'd always take it?
We need to make sure that this type of thing is only useful sometimes, not always, and heavily dependant on the situation. If you were not in a position where you need just that little bit extra (Seelowe? Suez?), maybe you'd not want to sacrifice a couple korps - after all, a heavily defended Atlantic wall means that it might not matter how many US units there are/are not, as they would have the devil's own time trying to get ashore, etc. But perhaps if the Allies were blasting through Turkey, trying to get into Europe proper from the land route, you might want to slow down the US buildup...
I'd like to see a massive US build-up post-Soviet.
As Wyatt says, that's in the works! :D Coupled with a sizeable increase to naval transport and seapower (they need not even build much more than they did historically - it could simply be a large-scale transfer to the ETO post-Midway, once it was apparent that the Japs were not going to win the naval war). As a matter of fact, I think that is 110% likely, as 'Germany first' was already the priority, and it is much easier to take on a land power than an island power which you can also just hem in and mostly ignore...
And it would be interesting to also have a minimal reemergence of a Russian (mostly partisan) army. This could be done by gradually adding in modest guerrilla units to the Soviet side. Eventually, these would stretch the German army, forcing them to weaken their French defense or give up swaths of territory to partisans. After X many turns after the fall of the Soviet Union, if these partisans manage to recapture certain cities, real-ish units could appear. So that eventually, if played right, some serious Russian presence would return by the end of the scenario (that is if Russia isn't knocked out late in the war), but not near as serious as if the reds had not lost.
Careful with this one!
Adding almost anything to the Reds when the outcome is still in doubt can have serious balance issues. Especially things like partisans which can appear and operate behind enemy lines - there are some odd hexes which can be taken in back of the main Axis line that can suddenly cause a half dozen infantry corps with a few mech corps showing up, which is utterly unrealistic, and this is just one of the possible effects. Another is that the Russian already attempts (well, I do, pretty much always) to extend the Axis line by every single hex that he can. It is difficult to do, however, as you have the units, but you need defence in depth, so you really don't have the units... Having a mess more throw-away units, even if they are just a handful of rifle squads, can serious bugger things up for the Axis.
I totally agree with your overall idea, I want to see a much stronger Russian, post-surrender; I just think that we should look at it after-the-fact, and not mess around too much with it pre-surrender. I am with you 200% that there should be more brush fires, partisans, regular army types popping up in adhoc units, etc. There is much debate as to whether the capture of Moscow would have even caused a surrender, after all...
Coupled with an overly strong US, there would be a reason to keep playing after an early Russian death.
Agreed! And that is one of the major changes that Veers and I are totally on the same page about.
We might also consider having minor Allies, Commonwealth, etc contributing more units to Europe with the fall of Russia (India, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc). Not sure the realism here.
EDIT: Would be interesting to see various divisions from the Pan American Union.
Minor Allies contributing more is doable, and possible, depending on the situation.
Canada gave so much to the war it staggers me. Our population back then was 11 million, and we had 1.1 million men in active service, and roughly the same number tied up with 'essential war industries'. 2.1 million more were required to grow/process food, etc ('essential civilian employment').
During the war, over 40% of the male population from 18 - 45, and virtually all of them volunteers, enlisted.
We were the first to have troops arrive in England to answer Britain's call.
Britain had entered the war with 80,000 military vehicles of all types; however, 75,000 of these British vehicles were left behind in the evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940. Virtually defenceless on the ground, Britain turned to Canada - and particularly the Canadian auto industry - to replace what had been lost. Canada not only replaced these losses, it did much more.
Canadian industry produced over 800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 40,000 field, naval, and anti-aircraft guns, and 1,700,000 small arms.
Of the 800,000 military vehicles of all types built in Canada, 168,000 were issued to Canadian forces. Thirty-eight percent of the total Canadian production went to the British. The remainder of the vehicles went to the other Allies. This meant that the Canadian Army 'in the field' had a ratio of one vehicle for every three soldiers, making it the most mechanized field force in the war.
Link (http://www.wwii.ca/page7.html)
Don't know if we could have done too much more than we did (perhaps industrially), but I know for certain that other populations were able to, at the very least on the manpower side of things.
Much like Mark, I *never* want to see TOs that are no-brainers. They have to be somewhat situational; we don't want anything that will always be chosen, nor do we want something that will never be chosen.
Agreed.
Start S. American war with 1 korps, 2 korps, 3 korps. 1 korps gives you a chance of starting the war, which will delay (one/two?) US infantry corps for a period of some months. (4?) 2 korps guarantees the war, and ties down 3 US corps for 4 - 6 months. 3 korps guarantees the war, and ties down 4 US corps and an armored division for 6 months. The US gets the units at the end of such time, but the Axis units are gone.
Consider what I've outlined above... Would you take that option? Always, sometimes, never? What would it be dependant on? (Time, most likely). Were you to kill Russia in '41, maybe this is not such a good trade? Maybe in '43, you'd sometimes take it? And in 44 - 45, you'd always take it?
How often do you expect the USSR to fall in 43+?
I would venture a guess of 'not very often', making this series of events reasonably useless, no?
I would wonder about having more US troops tied down by fewer German troops...after all, the Germans were very good at defensive warfare, and held up the Allies in France for almost a year. I would suspect that the Allies would have at least comprable and probably better supply than in Argentina/SA. I would also suspect that the terrain is more favourable to the attacker in France than SA, meaning a longer fight in SA for the same amount of territory in France.
All this to say that I would have the German troops holding up maybe twice their number, and for longer periods. Specific hold-up times would have to be looked at in more depth as we take a look at the actuall situation and terrain in SA.
And it would be interesting to also have a minimal reemergence of a Russian (mostly partisan) army. This could be done by gradually adding in modest guerrilla units to the Soviet side. Eventually, these would stretch the German army, forcing them to weaken their French defense or give up swaths of territory to partisans. After X many turns after the fall of the Soviet Union, if these partisans manage to recapture certain cities, real-ish units could appear. So that eventually, if played right, some serious Russian presence would return by the end of the scenario (that is if Russia isn't knocked out late in the war), but not near as serious as if the reds had not lost.
Careful with this one!
Adding almost anything to the Reds when the outcome is still in doubt can have serious balance issues. Especially things like partisans which can appear and operate behind enemy lines - there are some odd hexes which can be taken in back of the main Axis line that can suddenly cause a half dozen infantry corps with a few mech corps showing up, which is utterly unrealistic, and this is just one of the possible effects. Another is that the Russian already attempts (well, I do, pretty much always) to extend the Axis line by every single hex that he can. It is difficult to do, however, as you have the units, but you need defence in depth, so you really don't have the units... Having a mess more throw-away units, even if they are just a handful of rifle squads, can serious bugger things up for the Axis.
I didn't read anything to indicate that he meant anything new showing up before the fall of the USSR. Pretty sure he meant all those comments for after the fall of the USSR.
We were the first to have troops arrive in England to answer Britain's call.
Yeah, that's why I wonder about having the Canadians not show up until so late...:)
Don't know if we could have done too much more than we did (perhaps industrially), but I know for certain that other populations were able to, at the very least on the manpower side of things.
We'll have to look into just what the other Commonwealth countries did to see what else they could have done.
How often do you expect the USSR to fall in 43+?
I would venture a guess of 'not very often', making this series of events reasonably useless, no?
:D Those numbers are off the top off my head while working - sub in numbers of your own; the point remains that depending on the circumstances, there might be times when you would always take this option, might take this option, and would never take this option, and that's basically what I am driving at. Just an abstract example to get the point across about 'no brainer' TOs.
I would wonder about having more US troops tied down by fewer German troops...after all, the Germans were very good at defensive warfare, and held up the Allies in France for almost a year. I would suspect that the Allies would have at least comprable and probably better supply than in Argentina/SA. I would also suspect that the terrain is more favourable to the attacker in France than SA, meaning a longer fight in SA for the same amount of territory in France.
All this to say that I would have the German troops holding up maybe twice their number, and for longer periods. Specific hold-up times would have to be looked at in more depth as we take a look at the actuall situation and terrain in SA.
Again, just throwing examples out there - this is very much dependant on how much we ball-up the post-Russia US. As an example, suppose (just suppose! :) ) we didn't ball it up at all? Then the German would take this option every single time (assuming the US enters just as Russia falls), as the Yanks only start with 2 corps... You could remove their entire presence for months (or longer?)
No brainer.
On the hand, let's say that we gave the Yanks 100 divisions the second the Reds are dead (just suppose! :D ) Would a German player *ever* do this, then? It would remove 2 corps, to no effect, as the US has so many units.
This is the point I was (apparently unsuccessfully) trying to make. :laugh:
We need to find the balance.
I didn't read anything to indicate that he meant anything new showing up before the fall of the USSR. Pretty sure he meant all those comments for after the fall of the USSR.
You're right - my bad!
Another fine example of trying to post while doing 100 other things... :laugh:
In that case, then I think this is a fine idea.
:D Those numbers are off the top off my head while working - sub in numbers of your own; the point remains that depending on the circumstances, there might be times when you would always take this option, might take this option, and would never take this option, and that's basically what I am driving at. Just an abstract example to get the point across about 'no brainer' TOs.
Again, just throwing examples out there - this is very much dependant on how much we ball-up the post-Russia US. As an example, suppose (just suppose! :) ) we didn't ball it up at all? Then the German would take this option every single time (assuming the US enters just as Russia falls), as the Yanks only start with 2 corps... You could remove their entire presence for months (or longer?)
No brainer.
On the hand, let's say that we gave the Yanks 100 divisions the second the Reds are dead (just suppose! :D ) Would a German player *ever* do this, then? It would remove 2 corps, to no effect, as the US has so many units.
This is the point I was (apparently unsuccessfully) trying to make. :laugh:
We need to find the balance.
:laugh: I got the balance bit, I was just throwing out some different numbers. :D
Yes, but Brazil actually activated on the side of the Allies. And any 'Axis' troops appearing in the Americas would freak the USA out - I don't think Argentina would have lasted too long. US troops and/or supplies would have been in Brazil in no time.
Graf Spee, sub refueling............?
In the end I'd go with the 'abstracted' version too, I suppose.
Menschenfresser
03 May 07, 22:55
Veers has my back. :)
Definitely post-surrender. I would think it interesting to have the post-surrender force slowly mature as new commanders emerge, logistics and support return and backyard munition factories grow.
meatshield
01 Oct 08, 16:41
This is a really old post I stumbled on, but has any of this been implemented?
As a side thought, didn't the British have something like 2 and a half million Indian troops under arms? There were political problems in India and obviously most of them would not have been heavily armed or heavily mechanized. But in the context of the USSR falling it is conceivable that the British would sacrifice stability in India to mechanize large numbers of Indian troops for service in the ETO.
The force was entirely volunteer so I don't think their willingness to serve would have been questioned and if the US and Commonwealth ramps up production large numbers of these Indians could be armed for the British OOB. It seems plausible anyways.
Yeah....Mark brought up a REALLY good point to me.
One has to be VERY careful that one does not make the post-fall-of-the-USSR-forces too powerful. Else an Allied player will give up on Russia before he has really lost Russia, with the aim of bringing in the beefed up post-fall-of-the-USSR-forces as early as possible.
On another note, I agree about the Indian Army!
Menschenfresser
04 Oct 08, 09:07
I think a better option here would be to keep Russia around even if they lose everything west of the Volga. No automatic surrender like the other countries. Extend the map another twenty (or more) hexes east and draw a NO CROSS line for the Germans. The 'official' fall of the Soviet Union would cause the Russian army to disappear and in its place we'd see the slow formation of a 'new' army, armed by the US and Brits. Something lighter. Something with several guerrilla units that could slip through gaps in the German lines. It would slowly gain strength over the coming years (assuming Russia falls by '41). At first it might only be capable of mounting a few local attacks, but with the landing of an overdriven US army somewhere in Europe, force levels would equalize in the east to where the Russian army could begin to fight back. No they shouldn't be able to take Berlin before the Western Allies, but they could retake some territory. The main idea is just to keep them a threat and keep some German forces tied to the east.
At the point of Soviet surrender you are looking at the Axis player holding almost all of the map in some form or another. A huge area for even the mighty Germans to defend in strength everywhere. The extra hexes in the east should be some really rough terrain without much rail capacity. To hamper both sides from moving around quickly once deployed in the bush. And if the Soviet player managers to retake major cities late in the war, we could give him new units full of conscripts to further the cascade effect.
meatshield
04 Oct 08, 10:23
I like the idea of the map extension with a no cross line. As it stands right now the Germans can simply bottle up the White Russians in a handful of hexes. With a more open front the Germans would have to maintain a reasonably sized force in the East that grows over time.
On the Indian army idea I think the Indian OOB could eventually reach something like 2/3rd the late war Soviet OOB, but have the same delayed entry that the Soviets do. Coupled with gradually increasing sealift and their already impressive air power and multiple Allied beachheads certainly seems possible.
There would still be no incentive for the player to throw the game as the Soviets. You would only become as powerful as you would have with the Soviets in the game years later and you would still have to conduct amphibious landings. And if the victory objectives are changed/aligned in such a way that it is assumed the Germans ultimately lose the war and have to do better than historically there is a real sense of urgency on the Allied side that would make it a large gamble to lose the Soviets.
It should be difficult for the Allies to win a VP victory under these circumstances but the important point is that it would be fun to try!
Bdr.Mallette
04 Oct 08, 11:52
what are you guys talking about?
I'm having a ***** of a time getting through the Soviet lines, 'specially around the forts...sheeeesh.. it's summer '41 and tanks are just beginning to roll for their first good weather action...hopefully...but still the Russian forces are massive. An allied player would have to severely mishandle the units to lose ...I think. Iunno, many different variables for this one...besides, what would've happened if USSR fell, wouldn't a lot of other countries join the axis side... hmm...huhhh...hmmm?
lol
iunno....Rasmus...yer a pain in the ass with your friggin cavalry in the desert....all the russian language is freakin' the camels out.
bdr.
:OHNO:
meatshield
04 Oct 08, 13:40
From the other thread it sounds like you don't have the Barbarossa bonus and the Russians activated early but were not attacked right away.
Under those circumstances it will be hard to attack them.
what are you guys talking about?
I'm having a ***** of a time getting through the Soviet lines, 'specially around the forts...sheeeesh.. it's summer '41 and tanks are just beginning to roll for their first good weather action...hopefully...but still the Russian forces are massive. An allied player would have to severely mishandle the units to lose ...I think. Iunno, many different variables for this one...besides, what would've happened if USSR fell, wouldn't a lot of other countries join the axis side... hmm...huhhh...hmmm?
lol
iunno....Rasmus...yer a pain in the ass with your friggin cavalry in the desert....all the russian language is freakin' the camels out.
bdr.
:OHNO:
I've seen EA go both ways. It sounds liek you got off to a real rough start against Rasmus,
with some bonuses not going your way. As well, Rasmus is a top notch player, who I'm sure most of us woudl have difficulty coming away with a win against.
It can certainly go well for the Axis, so much so that the Allies loose. I'm sure if you were to find an opponent not as seasoned as Rasmus, and to get the barb bonus workign for you, you would have a much better time in Russia.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.