RC11 AAR

[Kragdob]

I really don't get it. You create a hole in the game only because some Axis Players feel uncomfortable they cannot conquer Norway in 1939 and need to put extra effort. I like the solution but not if this makes me to remember rules like that. What about new Players? Will it be in manual?

[rkr1958]

I really don't get it. You create a hole in the game only because some Axis Players feel uncomfortable they cannot conquer Norway in 1939 and need to put extra effort. I like the solution but not if this makes me to remember rules like that. What about new Players? Will it be in manual?

We're looking at a possible implementation change where the "Norway" air base check is disable in 1942 and later. This change was put in to counter, what a number of testers thought was, a gamey tactic by the allied player (specifically the Brits) in the early game. So one proposal is that we only use the change (i.e., do this check) in the early game (i.e., 1939 - 1941). Hence, the tactic is countered without any impact in later game (i.e., 1942 and beyond).

[Kragdob]

I really don't get it. You create a hole in the game only because some Axis Players feel uncomfortable they cannot conquer Norway in 1939 and need to put extra effort. I like the solution but not if this makes me to remember rules like that. What about new Players? Will it be in manual?

We're looking at a possible implementation change where the "Norway" air base check is disable in 1942 and later. This change was put in to counter, what a number of testers thought was, a gamey tactic by the allied player (specifically the Brits) in the early game. So one proposal is that we only use the change (i.e., do this check) in the early game (i.e., 1939 - 1941). Hence, the tactic is countered without any impact in later game (i.e., 1942 and beyond).

I oppose this change in its current shape.

I consider air units in CEAW as not strictly consisting of aircrafts only but also including small amount of ground units to protect them. With such definition it is strictly ok that Players have to their disposal very weak aero-mobile units that they can send to far distances quickly. They will not stand against decent corps unit but can control and area if no enemy unit nearby.

Why do Players complain that they have to reach a city after capital falls? In reality any side also had to take an effort to send unit to every location to take control. Even if capital fell and armistice/surrender was signed. So for me it is completely valid that Axis Player needs to fend off any weak UK units that took control of some areas. Same with Allied Player needs to send his unit to take undefended Axis controlled hex. So controlling a hex with air unit is not more ahistorical as having control over a whole country when its capital falls.


If you want to take Norway and do not walk from Oslo do it as Germans did - send invasion forces along its Western coast.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The Allies sent land forces to Norway and France. In GS they send just air units and that's no risk for them with the gain of making more trouble for the Axis. With the suggested change we ensure that you need to remain in the area if you only send air units.

So we get rid of an exploit. If I remember correctly this exploit was first mentioned by Jim in the BJR abbreviation. It was an exploit then and is still now. We didn't change it before because we felt we would limit the general rules too much (e. g. by sending the air units to the force pool along with the land units being evaculated in Operation Dynamo).

[Diplomaticus]

If you want to take Norway and do not walk from Oslo do it as Germans did - send invasion forces along its Western coast.

This is not a realistic option at all. Germans only get a budget of 2 amphibious invasions. Adding 2 more would make the cost 70 PP! Also, it's no joke to sail transports into the North Sea--they'd get sunk, very likely. Not sure how the Germans did it, but they had naval escorts, the forces involved were small, and they could move under cover of weather and darkness to some extent.

[rkr1958]

I really don't get it. You create a hole in the game only because some Axis Players feel uncomfortable they cannot conquer Norway in 1939 and need to put extra effort. I like the solution but not if this makes me to remember rules like that. What about new Players? Will it be in manual?

We're looking at a possible implementation change where the "Norway" air base check is disable in 1942 and later. This change was put in to counter, what a number of testers thought was, a gamey tactic by the allied player (specifically the Brits) in the early game. So one proposal is that we only use the change (i.e., do this check) in the early game (i.e., 1939 - 1941). Hence, the tactic is countered without any impact in later game (i.e., 1942 and beyond).

I oppose this change in its current shape.

I consider air units in CEAW as not strictly consisting of aircrafts only but also including small amount of ground units to protect them. With such definition it is strictly ok that Players have to their disposal very weak aero-mobile units that they can send to far distances quickly. They will not stand against decent corps unit but can control and area if no enemy unit nearby.

Why do Players complain that they have to reach a city after capital falls? In reality any side also had to take an effort to send unit to every location to take control. Even if capital fell and armistice/surrender was signed. So for me it is completely valid that Axis Player needs to fend off any weak UK units that took control of some areas. Same with Allied Player needs to send his unit to take undefended Axis controlled hex. So controlling a hex with air unit is not more ahistorical as having control over a whole country when its capital falls.


If you want to take Norway and do not walk from Oslo do it as Germans did - send invasion forces along its Western coast.

I can really see both points of view on this but in the end come down (slightly) on the side that view this tactic as a bit of an exploit. You have to remember that this game is a corps level simulation. I do understand the argument that flying air units to Bergen and / or Trondheim can represent the air transport of company size units to those cities. I haven't studied the history here but I would think that the Brits would probably have had the airlift capability to transport two combat companies in 1939. I don't know about battalion size units though; but suspect that was beyond their capability. Again, we're talking about 1939 where the way of moving combat units and their equipment between land masses separated by water was by ship. So, I may be even generous giving the Brits the capability to move company size combat units and their equipment by air in 1939.

I do understand that air units of the size represented in GS did have significant ground forces attached for defense and other purposes. However; that's not what were talking about. We're talking about an air unit flying in, getting control and then leaving. Given it's 1939 I can't see a combat unit air transported bigger than a company (except for airborne drops which are represented in the game). Let's look at the scale of the game. As an generalization, a company is 1/3 of battalion which is 1/3 of a regiment which is 1/3 of a division which is 1/3 of a corps. That's (1/3)^4 or 1/81 of a corps. Given a 10-step corps, the unit left behind by the Norway air "exploit" tactic would be the equivalent of 1/8 of a 1-step!. Does it really take two full strength corps to march up to Bergen and Trondheim to deal with a unit that's almost a 100 times smaller than it is?

Or is it better saying that the allied player can't intervene this cheaply. That is, if they want to intervene then they either need to keep their air units in place and /or transport (i.e., by ship) ground units to hold these cities. Historically, it did cost the British something to intervene in Norway. And they, along with the French, did land troops there.

[rkr1958]

Wow ... there were 2 other responses made in the time that I was composing my response above. I guess great minds think alike.

[Kragdob]

Guys,

I am not against the change. I even very like the way Borger dealt with it UNLESS it creates worse hole elswhere. And it does which makes me support previous solution as 'lesser evil'. People tend forget such strange rules in the heat of the battle and this may be a cause for many frustration.

Ideally there would be that ground units takes control over the hex indefinitely while air units only when they occupied it. So when hex should change ownership (like when country surrounders) hexes conquered/occupied by ground units will not change control even when deserted but those that air units control could return to current owner.

By the way: 200-300 of airplanes + all logistics would make for couple of hundreds of men which definitely not company sized but battalion/brigade (very low strength in case of ground firepower though).

[rkr1958]

Guys,

By the way: 200-300 of airplanes + all logistics would make for couple of hundreds of men which definitely not company sized but battalion/brigade (very low strength in case of ground firepower though).

But remember we're talking by the strength left behind when the air unit leaves. Anyway, and our historians here can correct me, I don't think it was until the early 1960's in Vietnam that we saw air mobile combat units of battalion size or larger. "We were soldiers", comes to mind.

[Kragdob]

Guys,

By the way: 200-300 of airplanes + all logistics would make for couple of hundreds of men which definitely not company sized but battalion/brigade (very low strength in case of ground firepower though).

But remember we're talking by the strength left behind when the air unit leaves. Anyway, and our historians here can correct me, I don't think it was until the early 1960's in Vietnam that we saw air mobile combat units of battalion size or larger. "We were soldiers", comes to mind.

It is the same situation when any ground unit leaves the place.

The real question is how we treat air units in a game. For me they are still also a kind of a ground unit, weak when faced with any regular unit but still of the size to be able to span control over a hex.

[rkr1958]

Guys,

By the way: 200-300 of airplanes + all logistics would make for couple of hundreds of men which definitely not company sized but battalion/brigade (very low strength in case of ground firepower though).

But remember we're talking by the strength left behind when the air unit leaves. Anyway, and our historians here can correct me, I don't think it was until the early 1960's in Vietnam that we saw air mobile combat units of battalion size or larger. "We were soldiers", comes to mind.

It is the same situation when any ground unit leaves the place.

The real question is how we treat air units in a game. For me they are still also a kind of a ground unit, weak when faced with any regular unit but still of the size to be able to span control over a hex.

Ok then ... do you have an historical example during WW2 of an air unit consisting of 260 planes and support personnel deploying to a remote location (separated by water) by air only, then having the planes fly out leaving the ground troops to stay and defend this remote location without any other air, ground or naval support? I just don't see the air transport of battalion size combat units in WW2 except, of course, for airborne drops. That's not what were talking here.

[Kragdob]

Ok then ... do you have an historical example during WW2 of an air unit consisting of 260 planes and support personnel deploying to a remote location (separated by water) by air only, then having the planes fly out leaving the ground troops to stay and defend this remote location without any other air, ground or naval support? I just don't see the air transport of battalion size combat units in WW2 except, of course, for airborne drops. That's not what were talking here.

I probably don't. But it is not the point here as whole surrender model in the game is abstract. In reality you needed to reach every area in country that surrendered to get control. Keeping Norwegian or French cities by your air units maybe looks strange but according to me reflects the fact that you might need to clear the area even after a country surrenders.

What is the complaint here? "Hey I invaded Norway grabbed Oslo and I want my 2 corps back for my French campaign". Well I think If Germans invaded Norway in 1939 they would have faced the same situation as in the old rule - they would need to commit much stronger forces and it would take longer to get to norther part. They could have get to Oslo and the vicinity but to get to more remote places they would probably need to walk as in 1939 UK wasn't busy in France and could spare much more than they did in 1940. In 1940 UK withdrew only because France fell and all the forces were pull back to defend homeland. I don't think they would evacuate e.g. Narvik in 1939.

I didn't hear anybody complaining about France. Perhaps it is much more rare but maybe also after fall of France you have spare corpses to clear the area so it is not a big pain.

For me even if it looks 'gamey' it serves as well as other abstractions in the game. Especially when in exchange I face an obvious bug which replaces a minor nuisance for Axis.

By the way Norway campaign took more than 60 days which is 3 turns and is similar to what you need to reach Bergen and Trondheim, even if UK grabbed it with air units. IF you fight in fair weather.

[Cybvep]

I just don't see the air transport of battalion size combat units in WW2 except, of course, for airborne drops.

Thousands of the Chinese troops were transported by Allied aircraft transports from Southeast Asia back to China . Naturally, it didn't happen in a day and it didn't involve airborne assaults.

[Kragdob]

A solution just came to me.

Maybe UK units (GARs), not Norwegian, should be spawned in Bergen and Trondheim when Norway is attacked by Axis? It would look like this:

On the turn the Norway is DOWed (even if surrenders during this turn) UK GARs are spawned in Bergen and Trondheim (this GAR could be Polish SBSK - Polish Highland Brigade )
=> before Belgium/Holland is Attacked (simulates Case Yellow) both unis have 5 steps
=> if Belgium/Holland is attacked but Paris under Allied control then spawned units have 2 steps
=> after Paris falls spawned units are Norwegian same as it is now

More sophisticated option could include popup for Allied Player asking him if he wishes to commit his forces into Norway. Then - respective number of steps would be subtracted from GARs in UK and spawned in Norway. The more Allied Player would be afraid of Sealion the less he would be willing to send his units to Norway.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't think this is historical. Britain never landed troops in Bergen and Trondheim. Germany did. Britain landed in Åndalsnes and Namsos and Britain / France / Poland landed in Narvik.

I think we should let the Allied player decide to send garrisons to Norway if they want to contest Bergen and Trondheim. Pionurpo did it against me and it took me forever to clear these cities.

If the Allied player doesn't want to commit to Norway then Norway would have surrendered very fast. So it was gamey that the Allied player could send air units to keep control of Bergen and Trondheim.

If a change should have been made then we would have to let Germany be able to land garrisons without using up sea invasion capacity, but that would have dire consequences for Sealion and I don't even dare to think about that.

So I propose we let things be as is. Invading Norway is still rather risky for the Germans and the Allies can send naval and land forces in addition to air forces to really make the Germans pay for the Norwegian cities. So we don't want to make it harder for them.

Weserübüng is a bit abstracted in GS, just as in most other games. This was a small scale operation with unit sizes much smaller than on the main continent. So the general rules don't fit the invasion of Norway. Many games have special rules for Norway, but that complicates the game. I think we have done well in GS. We use the standard rules and we see an invasion of Norway, sometimes contested and sometimes not. The outcome is Axis conquest of Norway, but at some cost.

[rkr1958]

By the way Norway campaign took more than 60 days which is 3 turns and is similar to what you need to reach Bergen and Trondheim, even if UK grabbed it with air units. IF you fight in fair weather.

But the reason historically that it took this long was because the British and French actually committed significant ground troops supported by the RN.

The UK/French ground force commitment was:

1. British 146th (Territorial) Infantry Brigade - Commanded by Brigadier Charles G. Phillips.
2. French 5e Demi-Brigade Chasseurs Alpins - Commanded by Général de Brigade Antoine Béthouart.
3. 15th Infantry Brigade - Commanded by Brigadier Herbert Edward Fitzroy Smyth.
4. 148th Infantry (Territorial) Brigade - Commanded by General Harold de Riemer Morgan.
5. 24th (Guards) Brigade - Commanded by Brigadier William Fraser.
6. French 27e Demi-Brigade de Chasseurs Alpins - Commanded by Lieutenant-colonel Valentini.
7. French 13th Foreign Legion Demi-Brigade - Commanded by Lieutenant-colonel Magrin-Verneret. Landed at Harstad on 5 May.
8. Samodzielna Brygada Strzelców Podhalańskich also known as Polish Independent Highland Brigade- Commanded by General Zygmunt Bohusz-Szyszko. (1st Demi-Brigade)
9. 2nd Demi-Brigade
10. Troop, 3rd The King's Own Hussars (personnel only, no tanks)[1]
11. 203rd Field Battery/51st Field Regiment.
12. French 342me Independent Tank Company.
13. French 2me Independent Colonial Artillery Group.
14. British 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Independent Companies.

So in ground forces alone I count 9 Brigades supported several artillery and tank units at the company level. That's a fairly hefty commitment of ground forces. Do you really give the allied player that when he flies two air units into Bergen and Trondheim and then files them out as soon as Norway falls. Or do you think it's more realistic for the allied player to actually have to move by transport a garrison or two to achieve this effect.

And the allied navy commitment to this operation was no slouch either:

Royal Navy

4 battleships - Resolution, Rodney, Valiant, and Warspite.
2 battlecruiser - Renown and Repulse.
3 aircraft carriers - Ark Royal, Furious and Glorious (sunk 8 June).
4 heavy cruisers - Berwick, Devonshire, Suffolk-(Damaged 17 April), and York.
6 light cruisers - Birmingham, Effingham - (Grounded 17 May, lost), Glasgow, Manchester, Sheffield, and Southampton.
5 light cruisers - Arethusa, Aurora, Coventry, Curlew(sunk 26 May), Enterprise, Galatea, and Penelope.
4 anti-aircraft cruisers - Cairo (damaged 28 May), Carlisle, Curacoa (damaged 24 April), Calcutta.
?? minesweepers.
21 destroyers. - HMS Acasta (sunk 8 June), HMS Afridi (sunk 3 May), HMS Ardent (sunk 8 June), HMS Bedouin, HMS Cossack, HMS Eskimo, HMS Punjabi, HMS Hero, HMS Icarus, HMS Kimberley, HMS Forester, HMS Foxhound, HMS Hardy (sunk 10 April), HMS Hunter (sunk 10 April), HMS Hotspur, HMS Havock, HMS Hostile, HMS Gurkha (sunk 9 April), HMS Glowworm (sunk 8 April), HMS Wolverine, HMS Zulu
4 Sloops. - HMS Bittern (L07)(sunk), HMS Stork, HMS Auckland (damaged 20 April), HMS Black Swan.
17 submarines.- HMS Sterlet (sunk), HMS Tarpon (sunk), HMS Thistle (sunk), HMS Seal (captured by germans).

[edit] Allied Navies

2 French cruisers: Emile Bertin and Montcalm.
11 French destroyers.Bison (sunk 3 May).
1 French submarine: Rubis
3 Polish destroyers: ORP Błyskawica, ORP Burza, ORP Grom (sunk 4 May).
1 Polish submarine: ORP Orzeł (sunk 8 June).
3 Polish troopships: MS Chrobry (damaged later scuttled 16 May), MS Sobieski, MS Batory

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_ ... _of_battle

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]