Slitherine

I completely agree with Stauffenberg, in reality both Axis and Allies had loads of crazy schemes which were never put to the test, so it would be wrong to impose our own preconceived ideas on the rules.

Given the Allied presence in Iraq and Iran, I think it's likely that the Allies would have tried to protect Baku from the Allies. However actually getting Allied troops to Russian territory is difficult enough already , and would put lots of players off.

It's also realistic that the Russians should 'protect' Iraq and Iran from the Axis.

jjdenver wrote:

joerock22 wrote:Even the Russians and Germans could have settled their differences peacefully. You know, if aliens invaded and the survival of humanity was at stake.

That made me lol. Isn't that a book? Now I think I should read it.

Is it a book? If you find it let me know, 'cause I'll read it too!

Yes it was a book from Harry Turtledove called "world war in the balance" i think.

Very interesting read, its about the landing of Aliens all over the world in 1942 , and the humans unite to destroy the invaders.

Quite an interesting read! Its a series of 5 books that ends in humans defeating the alien invasion force and ultimatly landing on the aliens homeworld.

hahaha i have always fantasized about a wargame that would actually have this pop up in the middle of the game , say the compagny market the game as a world war 2 game and then the players get surprised with an alien invasion in the middle of the game! this could be cool!

supermax wrote:Yes it was a book from Harry Turtledove called "world war in the balance" i think.

Very interesting read, its about the landing of Aliens all over the world in 1942 , and the humans unite to destroy the invaders.

Quite an interesting read! Its a series of 5 books that ends in humans defeating the alien invasion force and ultimatly landing on the aliens homeworld.

hahaha i have always fantasized about a wargame that would actually have this pop up in the middle of the game , say the compagny market the game as a world war 2 game and then the players get surprised with an alien invasion in the middle of the game! this could be cool!

Thanks, man. That would be cool. Can you imagine the first time it happened to you, and what your face would look like?

Stauffenberg wrote:What's the problem with allowing Allied units to fight in Russia to help them survive? We don't have any rules against e. g. German troops attacking Switzerland, Canada or Spain. If Italian, Romania and other troops managed to fight in Russia then certainly British troops could fight there as well. Supplies could come via Murmansk if they fight in the north or Persia if they fight in the south.

I don't think most Allied players would use British units in southern Russia if they instead could try to capture Libya and knock Italy out of the war. They would only consider helping the Russians if the Germans were on the verge of taking Baku. This didn't happen in the real war, but how do we know what the real British would do if German troops had penetrated the Russian defenses and moved across the Caucasus. Don't you think both Stalin and Churchill would do anything to prevent Germany from getting enough oil to maybe win the war? Then political differences could be set aside.

And what´s the problem with the axis invading Canada? Why it has been modified this with the USA entry at war after the game supermax vs Panzergeneral? How do you know that the USA reaction to this invasion had to be joining the allies? Why not joining the axis? We are talking of another things. If the BJR mod and finally the CEAW GS have brought to the game amphibious limitations is because it was FAIRLY unrealistic the possibility of that massive invasions. Simply, it would logistically impossible, e.g. for the germans to sail all over the oceans and land in Canada. So we have to talk about logistical limitations not about historical possibilities. And, in respect with we are talking in this thread, there should be limitations for deployments in Russia for the western allies the same way the axis has supply limitations in north Africa.

leridano wrote:And what´s the problem with the axis invading Canada?

Monroe Doctrine.

leridano wrote:Why it has been modified this with the USA entry at war after the game supermax vs Panzergeneral? How do you know that the USA reaction to this invasion had to be joining the allies? Why not joining the axis?

I really think that it's very unlikely that the USA in invoking the Monroe Doctrine to an invasion in North America by countries outside of North America would join in with those countries (i.e., the axis). If the axis causes the USA to invoke the Monroe Doctrine I don't see the USA joining them. Also, the USA was decidedly pro-allied. They actively escorted allied convoys, battle German u-boats and suffered losses in this undeclared war prior to their entry in December 1941.

leridano wrote:We are talking of another things. If the BJR mod and finally the CEAW GS have brought to the game amphibious limitations is because it was FAIRLY unrealistic the possibility of that massive invasions. Simply, it would logistically impossible, e.g. for the germans to sail all over the oceans and land in Canada. So we have to talk about logistical limitations not about historical possibilities. And, in respect with we are talking in this thread, there should be limitations for deployments in Russia for the western allies the same way the axis has supply limitations in north Africa.

I really don't see issues with logistics and supplying a US/UK expeditionary force in Russia. I would think supply wouldn't be a given, given the amount of material and equipment that was shipped to Russia through Lend Lease and the Murmansk convoys.

Proposed changes under evaluation by the design team. With respect to this thread note the last two. Comments?

Borger wrote:I managed to make the following changes to GS.



1. Updated the scenarios so Persia starts with only 2 garrisons instead of 3.

2. Updated the map and scenarios so the Azores airbase is controlled by Portugal

3. Changed the code so Persia won’t receive any reinforcements each year. This should take care of
late game Persian units invading Italy etc.

4. Changed the code so the Azores airbase is changed to US control when Portugal is DoW’ed regardless
of which side makes the DoW. A message about this is shown as well

5. Changed the code so the Azores will be leased to the Allies on August 11th 1943. A message about this
is shown.

6. Changed the code so Russian units in Allied controlled territory and vice versa will get one supply level
less than normal (but never lower than 1).

7. Changed the code so Russian units in Allied controlled territory and vice versa will max get supply level
3.



The last 2 changes should take care of the problem with sending e. g. Russian units to Iraq or British units to

Russia and then receive full supply. Now you can’t benefit from the supply sources of the other side. You
can still fight, but with less efficiency. That means less movement allowance, fewer steps to repair.

I made the following changes to the game code and sent it to the development team for testing.

1. One of the 3 Persian garrisons is removed from all scenarios.
2. Persia is changed so it won't receive the yearly reinforcement. This prevents late game Persian units fighting in the Med.
3. The supply level of Russian units in Allied territory and vice versa is reduced by 1 (but it won't drop beyond supply level 1).
4. The supply level of Russian units in Allied territory and vice versa is reduced to 3 if higher than 3.

The last 2 changes takes care of Russian units tapping supply from Basra or Allied units tapping supply from Moscow. The
units can still fight when on the territory controlled by the other side Allied, but the movement allowance will be reduced
due to lower supply and the number of steps you can repair is also reduced.

The reduced movement means you can't rail back to your own side since you only have supply level 3. So usually air units
can quickly get back. So if the Russians send units to Iraq they will be stuck there or you need to move the long way through
the mountains to get them back to Russia where you get supply level 4 or better needed for rail movement. It also means
you can't rail units TO the other side front line quickly because you need to move across the border before you can use the
other side rail network. But since you have supply level 3 or less being there it means you can't rail e. g. from Persia to
Alexandria in one turn. You have to move the hard way from Persia towards Egypt. The reduced supply should take care of quick interventions. Now you need to plan your interventions and the units you send will be gone for a long time.

Again i think Leridano misse the point of this being a game, not an historical simulation in an history classroom. I know what i am talking about since i majored in history and i also ran an historical simulation on the napoleonic wars for 7 years, where it was a real simulation and you couldnt do un-historical things. so you either spend your time in a classroom full of historians stating that only reliable sources can be used and that the "what-if" are baseless, or have fun with a computer game

If we do like you say, that is make the game for it to be only historical, well my friend people are going to get bored very fast about the game. I myself would probably stop playing after 1 or 2 games.

I suspect that it is comforting for some players to make sure that the game environment is controlled and that nothing else than what was historically possible could happen. Nothign unpleasant can happen to them other than the expected historical route the germans or allies took... Opinions on this?

My whole point is that i think the design team did an awesome job with the GS mod and that only minor modifications like Borger is proposing should be done. Keep up the good work BJR!

But for the sake of playability let it be a game!

I generally agree Supermax with the spirit of what you say. But things should only be possible that were historically possible. For example German shouldn't be able to conquer Canada while the U.S. watches and doesn't intervene. And the Luftwaffe shouldn't be able to develop teleportation devices. Britain shouldn't be able to field a 2 million man quality army in 1940 - manpower constraints. Germany shouldn't be able to drill for oil in Berlin. Italy shouldn't be able to dig a canal from Rome to Kiel.

All of that is silly stuff, not realistically possible. The game must constrain the player to historical constraints of resource, logistics, manpower, etc. In your game vs Panzergeneral you've done some stuff that honestly the game shouldn't allow. There is no way the U.S. would have stood by and allowed Hitler to take over Canada and base huge Wermacht and Luftwaffe forces along the U.S. border without mobilizing and intervening. Just because it's "fun" doesn't mean the game should allow it.

I agree with you that GS mod designers are doing a great job putting in a place a historical framework without forcing the player into a historical path.

JJ what you say makes sense and i agree with the update for US entering the war as soon as there is a canadian invasion, thats fine. The transport rule as well, thats fine.

But, i think we will both agree still, if the german player still wants to do it for some reason, well let him do it... In my game against Pangen, i could have missed totally my attack on canada or US and then would have lost the game in a landslide. I took the risk and it paid off. The update wasnt really necessary in my opinion (een if i agree with the historical reasons for it) since you really need to have a complete destruction of the british naval force, an early France, and early and successefuls ealion and TOTAL surprise in Canada... I accomplished all of that because it hadnt been done before so Pangen had no reason to think i would try it. But every player that read the AAR would now guard against it.

So i say that while we should limit some stuff like i did in the last game, all players that criticise my attack of North America would probably love to get a chance to do the same, just for the sake of trying it and fighting it out in the new continent... It really was exciting to invade North america man, since it was the first time i attempted it, i didnt know if the forces i brought over where sufficient, if i was doing the right moves, or if it could simply work... Its really exciting to do something that you have no reference, either be in the game or in an historical sense.

So if we dont want North america to be invaded, why is it on the map? Should it be "off map", like world in flames?

Stauffenberg wrote:I made the following changes to the game code and sent it to the development team for testing.

1. One of the 3 Persian garrisons is removed from all scenarios.
2. Persia is changed so it won't receive the yearly reinforcement. This prevents late game Persian units fighting in the Med.
3. The supply level of Russian units in Allied territory and vice versa is reduced by 1 (but it won't drop beyond supply level 1).
4. The supply level of Russian units in Allied territory and vice versa is reduced to 3 if higher than 3.

The last 2 changes takes care of Russian units tapping supply from Basra or Allied units tapping supply from Moscow. The
units can still fight when on the territory controlled by the other side Allied, but the movement allowance will be reduced
due to lower supply and the number of steps you can repair is also reduced.

The reduced movement means you can't rail back to your own side since you only have supply level 3. So usually air units
can quickly get back. So if the Russians send units to Iraq they will be stuck there or you need to move the long way through
the mountains to get them back to Russia where you get supply level 4 or better needed for rail movement. It also means
you can't rail units TO the other side front line quickly because you need to move across the border before you can use the
other side rail network. But since you have supply level 3 or less being there it means you can't rail e. g. from Persia to
Alexandria in one turn. You have to move the hard way from Persia towards Egypt. The reduced supply should take care of quick interventions. Now you need to plan your interventions and the units you send will be gone for a long time.

Those are well-balanced changes that improve GS even more. Good job!

This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Although I'd probably prefer a stricter or more absolute rule to account for the political dynamics and command issues, I think this is workable. Thanks again to the modders for their great work on this game!

supermax wrote:JJ what you say makes sense and i agree with the update for US entering the war as soon as there is a canadian invasion, thats fine. The transport rule as well, thats fine.

But, i think we will both agree still, if the german player still wants to do it for some reason, well let him do it... In my game against Pangen, i could have missed totally my attack on canada or US and then would have lost the game in a landslide. I took the risk and it paid off. The update wasnt really necessary in my opinion (een if i agree with the historical reasons for it) since you really need to have a complete destruction of the british naval force, an early France, and early and successefuls ealion and TOTAL surprise in Canada... I accomplished all of that because it hadnt been done before so Pangen had no reason to think i would try it. But every player that read the AAR would now guard against it.

So i say that while we should limit some stuff like i did in the last game, all players that criticise my attack of North America would probably love to get a chance to do the same, just for the sake of trying it and fighting it out in the new continent... It really was exciting to invade North america man, since it was the first time i attempted it, i didnt know if the forces i brought over where sufficient, if i was doing the right moves, or if it could simply work... Its really exciting to do something that you have no reference, either be in the game or in an historical sense.

So if we dont want North america to be invaded, why is it on the map? Should it be "off map", like world in flames?

Supermax, you're not the first to pull off an invasion of Canada in PBEM. I imagine that in the right circumstances, someone could still pull it off by sacrificing some of their Barbarossa effort.

Clark wrote:

supermax wrote:JJ what you say makes sense and i agree with the update for US entering the war as soon as there is a canadian invasion, thats fine. The transport rule as well, thats fine.

But, i think we will both agree still, if the german player still wants to do it for some reason, well let him do it... In my game against Pangen, i could have missed totally my attack on canada or US and then would have lost the game in a landslide. I took the risk and it paid off. The update wasnt really necessary in my opinion (een if i agree with the historical reasons for it) since you really need to have a complete destruction of the british naval force, an early France, and early and successefuls ealion and TOTAL surprise in Canada... I accomplished all of that because it hadnt been done before so Pangen had no reason to think i would try it. But every player that read the AAR would now guard against it.

So i say that while we should limit some stuff like i did in the last game, all players that criticise my attack of North America would probably love to get a chance to do the same, just for the sake of trying it and fighting it out in the new continent... It really was exciting to invade North america man, since it was the first time i attempted it, i didnt know if the forces i brought over where sufficient, if i was doing the right moves, or if it could simply work... Its really exciting to do something that you have no reference, either be in the game or in an historical sense.

So if we dont want North america to be invaded, why is it on the map? Should it be "off map", like world in flames?

Supermax, you're not the first to pull off an invasion of Canada in PBEM. I imagine that in the right circumstances, someone could still pull it off by sacrificing some of their Barbarossa effort.

Yes, i know that i am not the first. Its just that its funny how people say that "if only this or that... then supermax could not have done it". So i only meant that a lot of people that say that "if only sealion had been harder, or if only the british fleet handt been destroyed an blablabla..." would love to get the chance to have as much fun as i had in my AAR in America and try something new for a change.

Sorry about the mixup Clark!

Other than that, i know it has been done before and most importantly that it can be done again. For examble, if you decide to completly sacrifice Barbarossa, i could easily envision a mega-landing on the Us east coast where the USA in 1940 are in no position to do anything about it. Ive done it in stage in my game against Pangen since i could do it, but you could do it all in 1 stroke.