GS v2.01.24 suggested changes

[Peter Stauffenberg]

To encourage Sealion and thus making it more risky for the Allied player to abandon UK I propose the following changes. Please vote for each of them.

1. The northern convoy will go to Halifax instead of Murmansk if both Liverpool and London are Axis controlled. The convoy will go back to Murmansk if either of these cities are liberated. This means that if UK can't deploy forces in UK then the convoy to Russia will be considered too risky and the PP's will go to Canada instead.

2. Max morale drop for UK forces for losing London
a. 5
b. 10
c. 15

3. Max morale drop for UK forces for losing Liverpool
a. 5
b. 10
c. 15

[Peter Stauffenberg]

4. Reduction in max morale loss when USSR joins the Allies
a. 5
b. 10
c. 15

5. Reduction in max morale loss when USA joins the Allies
a. 5
b. 10
c. 15

If we mix 2-3 vs 4-5 we can make sure the UK forces have normal max morale after USA joins the Allies so they can perform well in 1942 and later. That means the worst time for them for losing England will be in 1940-1941 and can lead to the loss of French North Africa and Egypt/Iraq as well. So they're punished for awhile for losing their home country, but the CW will get a morale boost when the Axis is at war with USSR and later USA.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

6. An alternative to 2-3 could be to allow for max morale loss for UK forces even after Axis forces land in UK

Now we have a requirement of 10 UK units in England / Scotland / Canada to maintain the max morale. Each unit less than the threshold drops the morale by 5. That's good for preventing a UK garrison blob in France and at the same time allowing for a BEF.

If Axis units land in England we could drop the threshold to 6 and only count units in England and Scotland. So UK will lose 5 max morale for each UK unit less than the threshold. That means it will hurt to abandon UK of forces. You can get pretty normal max morale if you decide to fight in England and place new units there, but if you abandon the island then morale will drop. So Germany can get the morale far down if they clear the island of UK troops. That should be an incentive to build extra UK units in England after Sealion and at least send them to Scotland trying to hold the line there.

4-5 will be used with either 2-3 or 6. So after USA joins the Allies then the UK will almost be back to normal max morale.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

7. UK manpower drop if London and Liverpool are Axis controlled
a. 10% drop
b. 20% drop
c. 30% drop
d. 40% drop
e. 50% drop

The max manpower level will drop by the current percentage. Current manpower will drop by the same so the percentage will remain the same. E. g. UK has about 650 max manpower. So a drop of 30% means it drops to: 455

If UK war effort is 110 it means that before UK would generate 650*1.1 / 100 = 7.15 manpower per turn.
After the drop the will generate 455*1.1 / 100 = 5.005 manpower per turn

So the manpower loss is about 2 per turn and that adds up to 2*18 = 36 per year. That's about 3.5 corps units or 4 mech units.

[Morris]

7. UK manpower drop if London and Liverpool are Axis controlled
a. 10% drop
b. 20% drop
c. 30% drop
d. 40% drop
e. 50% drop

The max manpower level will drop by the current percentage. Current manpower will drop by the same so the percentage will remain the same. E. g. UK has about 650 max manpower. So a drop of 30% means it drops to: 455

If UK war effort is 110 it means that before UK would generate 650*1.1 / 100 = 7.15 manpower per turn.
After the drop the will generate 455*1.1 / 100 = 5.005 manpower per turn

So the manpower loss is about 2 per turn and that adds up to 2*18 = 36 per year. That's about 3.5 corps units or 4 mech units.

It sounds great ! We had mentioned this in our suggestion of human resource before on the forum ( option about the effect to the manpower resourse on Mar 30th 2011)as follows :
Opinions about the effect to the manpower resourse during the different war situation

At present , in GS2.00 , the production & fuel data are both effected by the war situation ‘s status . Whenever you occupy a city or a oil field ,it will increase your income of production & fuel , and vise versa .

But regarding to the manpower resource , it is not effected by the war situation’s going . It increases a fixed number at each turn & be used by supply unit or product new unit . .

Actually , the fact was not going like this !
For example :
1 If the mainland of the Great Britain was occupied by sealion mission , The GB would lose almost 47 millions population including the people who was able to be conscriptive for military . Then GB would only have the manpower from Canada , SouthAfrica , Austrilia , Newzealand ,etc . It would be quite difficult to set up a strong enough army like it had happened in the real history . It would serious decrease the GB’s war ability .

2 In the real history of the WW2 , at the most dangerous period of USSR in the summer of 1942 ,there was a really big territory which had 40-60 millions population was occupied by Axis . The USSR was too difficult to find manpower to set up new troops from the above occupied area . So when USSR began to fight back , they were so urgently to conscript solidiers from the area they just liberated .

But in the GS2.0 ,whatever the mainland England is occupied ,or USSR lost a huge area of their territory ,it will not effect their output of manpower resource . It seems the millions of people moved to the back at the same time . It is not realistic .

So we provide a suggestion to discuss :
To set up a data connection between the native cities and
50% of GB’s manpower ,
50% of USSR’s manpower ,
30% of USA’s manpower
100% of Germany ‘s manpower
100% of Italy’s manpower

Each city has a fixed percentage( city production/ total country production ) of his country’s total production , and this percentage also be used in the above manpower which has data connection with it . If this city is occupied by the enemy , this country will lose the manpower from this city . At the same time , the enemy also can not conscript soldiers from this city .

China GS group
Morris & Mamahuhu


I vote d 40% drop
Since if London& Liverpool lost , UK lost the population of England .

[zechi]

Before giving a vote I would indicate to a general problem I see with these changes. I don't know if the proposed changes would not be too harsh from a viewpoint of playibility. Under the current rules the British could fight the whole period from the beginning of the war till 1942 nearly alone (I don't count the French). This could lead to a very frustrating game for the Allied player, if he has to fight only with Britain against the much stronger Axis for such a long period of time.

In a worst case scenario the Allies will only be able to do anything significantly in winter 1942/43 (if the Axis player does not do a Barbarossa in 1941). Both the US and the Soviets need a few turn to be fully ready for any "big" operations. Therefore the Allied player would have to play with a really handicapped British Empire. This could seriously harm the fun part of the game for the Allied player.

Perhaps I'm a little bit pessimistic about this, but imagine you play the Allies and you get hammered from the start of the game till 1942, because the Axis skip Barbarossa in 1941 and you have to fight a great part of the game with a handicapped British Empire. The game should be fun for both sides and Operation Sealion should not become a "no brainer" for the Axis.

Cheers Zechi

[pk867]

With the current version of convoys When Russia and USA enter UK only gets one convoy and they are not large.

We reduced the size of the convoys a little. In my current games the UK barely have enough production points to sustain most operations during 1940 to 1943 timeline so far. We will see as the game progresses into the summer of 43'.

[PionUrpo]

I like refining the manpower aspect but instead of making it applicable only to UK, it should include everyone else as well. IIRC last time Manpower was on the table it was deemed too big a change to be made in a hurry.

Perhaps I'm a little bit pessimistic about this, but imagine you play the Allies and you get hammered from the start of the game till 1942, because the Axis skip Barbarossa in 1941 and you have to fight a great part of the game with a handicapped British Empire. The game should be fun for both sides and Operation Sealion should not become a "no brainer" for the Axis.

Have to agree with this. Too much handicap for the loss of England might lead to curbstomping of UK (for almost half the game) becoming Number One choice.


For the vote:

I think loss of morale with 2b + 3b and then recovering part of it with 4a + 5a. Of course if Liverpool and/or London are liberated morale returns to normal. That should be likely to lead to the loss of North Africa and/or Middle East if Sealion is allowed too easily.

Oh and yes to 1.

EDIT: 7. e Coupled with the morale loss should be more than enough to persuade Allied player to assing significant forces on the infamous Pinniped Watch. Just hoping it isn't overdone making Sealion the No.1 option... but I suppose that's why we're here

[gerones]

My votes are:

1. Yes
2. No --> I prefer 6. solution
3. No --> I prefer 6. solution
4. a.
5. a.
6. Yes
7. Yes. 50% manpower drop. This only would work for UK because it is a way to compensate that UK does not surrender as a normal country when London and Liverpool are captured by the axis and it is a good measure for avoiding the player not to worry at all about UK forces. But I oppose to extend manpower loss for all the countries for obvious game balance reasons. Furthermore, we have to keep in mind that there´s a lot of off-map resources so if the germans e.g. achieve to capture Washington or New York, this territory is a minimal part of the total territory of USA so it makes no sense a manpower reduction for losing any of these cities. The same argument for USSR.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

For Russia we have to remember that they actually evacuated people and factories to the Urals and further east. So losing Russian cities wasn't as devastating to them as for other countries.

When the Allies enter Italy and Germany their manpower is usually already down the drain and the end of the game is not so far away. So it won't help much doing anything about the manpower production for these countries.

Most of USA is off-map so they wouldn't lose much manpower if the Axis landed in eastern USA.

France will also get below 75% manpower soon after Case Yellow begins and will fall soon after. So it won't help having manpower rules for them either.

The only major power country that can lose their come country and expect to get back is UK. So that country is the only one where losing England / Scotland would actually have a long term war effect.

[Blathergut]

1 yes
4b
5b
6 yes
7d

Is there any increase to the difficulty of performing an Axis invasion of Britain? Or political consequence if it is not concluded quickly enough to please der fuhrer?

[PionUrpo]

For Russia we have to remember that they actually evacuated people and factories to the Urals and further east. So losing Russian cities wasn't as devastating to them as for other countries.

When the Allies enter Italy and Germany their manpower is usually already down the drain and the end of the game is not so far away. So it won't help much doing anything about the manpower production for these countries.

Most of USA is off-map so they wouldn't lose much manpower if the Axis landed in eastern USA.

France will also get below 75% manpower soon after Case Yellow begins and will fall soon after. So it won't help having manpower rules for them either.

The only major power country that can lose their come country and expect to get back is UK. So that country is the only one where losing England / Scotland would actually have a long term war effect.

Ok, fair enough for US/ITA/GER/FRA but while Soviets did evac a lot of population to east many were left behind as well. Also, in '43-'44 when they were liberating Ukraine/Belarus large numbers of the liberated military age population was immediately drafted to alleviate manpower shortages. Losing population centers wouldn't have been as devastating as for UK but perhaps give a small percentage to some of the larger cities, say Kiev/Kharkov/Smolensk/Leningrad/Stalingrad/Moscow?

Anyway, edited my vote.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

If we want generic manpower rules then I think we should link the manpower to rail cap cities.

So I alter my suggestion for 7 to the following.

7. Manpower drop
Country group 1 (USSR)
Each railcap point: 5% manpower drop

Country group 2 (UK, USA, Germany):
Each railcap point: 10% manpower drop

Country group 3 (France, Italy):
Each railcap point: 30% manpower drop

USSR has railcap like this:
Moscow 4
Omsk, Stalingrad 2
Kiev, Kharkov, Astrakhan, Kuybychev, Sverdlovsk, Gorki: 1

So losing Moscow means 20% manpower drop. Losing Kiev means 5%. After the first year usually Kiev and Kharkov are lost and that means -10%. In 1942 they might lose Moscow and Stalingrad and that means -30% further.

UK will lose 20% for London, 10% for Glasgow and 10% for Liverpool.

By using railcap cities as manpower cities we don't have to clutter the map with more info about manpower.

This is a simple and generic rule that can be applied for all countries. For France and Italy it has little effect because if the lose the capital they surrender and Marseilles and Milan are rarely captured before the surrender. Germany will notice it to some degree, but that will only be months before the game will end and then the German manpower level is already down in the drain.

So the major effects will be for Russia and UK. Russia will more likely drop below 75%, but rarely below 50%. So it means that the Russian units might get -1 quality

[gerones]

Two questions about this possible new rule based on cities rail capability:

- Will the russians regain manpower again by 5% when they liberate cities as Kharkov or Kiev?
- Manpower loss will be only applied if the city with rail cap is conquered by the enemy, but it won´t be applied if the city with rail cap is dropped to 0 PP´s because combats or strat bombings. Is this so?

[Morris]

If we want generic manpower rules then I think we should link the manpower to rail cap cities.

So I alter my suggestion for 7 to the following.

7. Manpower drop
Country group 1 (USSR)
Each railcap point: 5% manpower drop

Country group 2 (UK, USA, Germany):
Each railcap point: 10% manpower drop

Country group 3 (France, Italy):
Each railcap point: 30% manpower drop

USSR has railcap like this:
Moscow 4
Omsk, Stalingrad 2
Kiev, Kharkov, Astrakhan, Kuybychev, Sverdlovsk, Gorki: 1

So losing Moscow means 20% manpower drop. Losing Kiev means 5%. After the first year usually Kiev and Kharkov are lost and that means -10%. In 1942 they might lose Moscow and Stalingrad and that means -30% further.

UK will lose 20% for London, 10% for Glasgow and 10% for Liverpool.

By using railcap cities as manpower cities we don't have to clutter the map with more info about manpower.

This is a simple and generic rule that can be applied for all countries. For France and Italy it has little effect because if the lose the capital they surrender and Marseilles and Milan are rarely captured before the surrender. Germany will notice it to some degree, but that will only be months before the game will end and then the German manpower level is already down in the drain.

So the major effects will be for Russia and UK. Russia will more likely drop below 75%, but rarely below 50%. So it means that the Russian units might get -1 quality

I do agree with all of this .
By the way how about Leningrad & Novograd ? they were the railtransportation center of the goods from Murmansk . How about give some punishment to the convoy number if Leningrad & Novograd fall or circled ?

[Morris]

Two questions about this possible new rule based on cities rail capability:

- Will the russians regain manpower again by 5% when they liberate cities as Kharkov or Kiev?
- Manpower loss will be only applied if the city with rail cap is conquered by the enemy, but it won´t be applied if the city with rail cap is dropped to 0 PP´s because combats or strat bombings. Is this so?

It seems should be yes

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Two questions about this possible new rule based on cities rail capability:

- Will the russians regain manpower again by 5% when they liberate cities as Kharkov or Kiev?
- Manpower loss will be only applied if the city with rail cap is conquered by the enemy, but it won´t be applied if the city with rail cap is dropped to 0 PP´s because combats or strat bombings. Is this so?

Yes. It will only check for the railcap max value and not the current value. If you liberate the city you increase your max manpower again.

[zechi]

Just a question, why should we need any "generic" manpower rules?

From my point of view the current system works very well. The Axis normally get manpower problems as it has been historically the case (1943) and the Allies usually get manpower problems at the end of the war (1944/45), which is also historical. Britain may get manpower problems early on, if they are engaged in heavy fighting (Sealion for example), which seems fine to me. So I wonder were there is a problem with the current system. We should not change anything which is already balanced and also feels historical for a system which will need complete rebalancing.

[PionUrpo]

Just a question, why should we need any "generic" manpower rules?

From my point of view the current system works very well. The Axis normally get manpower problems as it has been historically the case (1943) and the Allies usually get manpower problems at the end of the war (1944/45), which is also historical. Britain may get manpower problems early on, if they are engaged in heavy fighting (Sealion for example), which seems fine to me. So I wonder were there is a problem with the current system. We should not change anything which is already balanced and also feels historical for a system which will need complete rebalancing.

Well, to me its if UK has a special case then why not the rest. Although, I would settle for UK + USSR since for them it would be of most obvious use. For UK to dissuade Allied player from sacrificing the Brits early on and for USSR to feel some pinch on manpower if key Soviet territory is in Axis hands too long. (They weren't inexhaustible after all) I've never ran below 75% with Soviets and only once with the UK due to Sealion. But that's just in my experience. Btw, I'd be interested to know how many run low on Allied manpower late game.

Since the rail cap would be used it applies nicely to everyone while having little effect on 'usual' game apart from Russia. On another thought, it might also increase Moscow's importance since now it seems more efficient just to bomb it flat.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I need to recap here and this is what I will go with if you don't make any objections.

1. north convoy will go to Halifax instead of Murmansk if London AND Liverpool are Axis controlled

This means UK will get the convoy points instead of USSR.

2. UK max morale will be determined by the following.

a. You need 8 Allied ground units in Britain to avoid a max morale loss. For each unit less than the
needed number the max morale drops by 5. Scapa Flow and North Ireland are counted too

b. When USSR enters the war the UK max morale loss drops by 10

c. When USA enters the war the UK max morale loss drops by 10

d. If either Germany or Italy has surrendered the UK max morale drops by 10

The effects from b, c and d make the morale loss negative (so it becomes a morale boost). It only helps
against Britain being occupied