Slitherine

What is the response if possible to add 3 rows to the bottom of the play area to improve the congestion of the Red Sea and Persian Gulf?

It's not that easy to expand the map since the code is coded around a hex resolution of 150x72. It's possible to alter this, but then many class files in both the game and editor must be altered and
lots of functions re-checked. We can expect bugs by doing this and extensive testing to iron out the bugs.

One big job would be that all hexes will get new numbers since the calculation of the hex number = current column + number of rows * current row. If we change the number of rows or number of columns in each row then the hex numbers will change. To avoid having to redraw the map and scenarios manually with 10000+ hexes I hope to use the existing as is and map them to the new hex numbers. I think it should be possible to find some kind of Excel formula for calculating the new numbers based upon the existing ones.

It's certainly doable to make an expanded map, but it will take some months to complete. If we do that then we should look into map expansion in all directions since we need to change the code anyway regardless of the mapsides we expand. We have the following expansion options.

1. West (add 4 columns to give USA a bit more room to manoeuver inside USA)
2. East (add 4 columns to put Omsk at a more accurate location east of the Urals. It means we keep Urals as is, but get some terrain east of Urals before Omsk.
3. South (add 4 columns to get more room in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf (as shown above.).
4. North (add either 4 columns or 12 columns). The former will just be enough to link Sweden and Finland at the correct location, but the north will still be cut. The latter allows for a sea lane all the way to Murmansk and Archangel. At the moment the map is quite condensed in the north to avoid having Norway and Sweden as an "island" like it is in CeaW. That means the Gulf of Bothnia is cut off too far to the south.

So the questions should probably be:

1. Do we want an expanded map for a future version or is the current map dimensions good enough?

2. If yes to the question 1 then which sides should be expanded.
2A. West 4 hexes?
2B. East 4 hexes?
2C. South 4 hexes?
2D. North 4 hexes?
2E. North 12 hexes?

3. Do we think there will be any action at the fringe fronts we expand with or will it mainly be chrome?

Stauffenberg wrote:It's not that easy to expand the map since the code is coded around a hex resolution of 150x72. It's possible to alter this, but then many class files in both the game and editor must be altered and
lots of functions re-checked. We can expect bugs by doing this and extensive testing to iron out the bugs.

One big job would be that all hexes will get new numbers since the calculation of the hex number = current column + number of rows * current row. If we change the number of rows or number of columns in each row then the hex numbers will change. To avoid having to redraw the map and scenarios manually with 10000+ hexes I hope to use the existing as is and map them to the new hex numbers. I think it should be possible to find some kind of Excel formula for calculating the new numbers based upon the existing ones.

It's certainly doable to make an expanded map, but it will take some months to complete. If we do that then we should look into map expansion in all directions since we need to change the code anyway regardless of the mapsides we expand. We have the following expansion options.

1. West (add 4 columns to give USA a bit more room to manoeuver inside USA)
2. East (add 4 columns to put Omsk at a more accurate location east of the Urals. It means we keep Urals as is, but get some terrain east of Urals before Omsk.
3. South (add 4 columns to get more room in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf (as shown above.).
4. North (add either 4 columns or 12 columns). The former will just be enough to link Sweden and Finland at the correct location, but the north will still be cut. The latter allows for a sea lane all the way to Murmansk and Archangel. At the moment the map is quite condensed in the north to avoid having Norway and Sweden as an "island" like it is in CeaW. That means the Gulf of Bothnia is cut off too far to the south.

So the questions should probably be:

1. Do we want an expanded map for a future version or is the current map dimensions good enough?

2. If yes to the question 1 then which sides should be expanded.
2A. West 4 hexes?
2B. East 4 hexes?
2C. South 4 hexes?
2D. North 4 hexes?
2E. North 12 hexes?

3. Do we think there will be any action at the fringe fronts we expand with or will it mainly be chrome?

I certainly have had many games where the map around the Southern sea lanes has caused gamey issues, there isn't enough room around the loops if they become area's of contested operations

I would be fine with either the expanded map or status quo. However, while moving Omsk a bit and adding some hexes to the US mainland won't be a big issue, the changes in Northern Europe are a different story. How will they impact the invasion of Norway? IRL Narvik was important, will it be important in-game? How easy it will be for the Allied player to intervene in Norway? Can the convoy AI handle the "proper" route to Murmansk? Will the northern convoy be stopped when the player takes Murmansk and Archangelsk or takes Archangelsk and cuts the Murman Railway?

As was posed in the question to vote was adding 3 rows South which would be 150 x 75 hexes that is a 2:1 ratio .

As was mentioned with the expanded North map the AI would not be changed. Right now the AI does not use the loops now I believe.

This is just to take a baby step with the current situation that has been since v2.0 and earlier.

The larger would be for a latter version down the road.

As was mentioned with the expanded North map the AI would not be changed. Right now the AI does not use the loops now I believe.

I meant the convoy AI. Will it be able to sail from the western part of the map to Murmansk and/or Archangelsk properly?

It should.

Cybvep wrote:

As was mentioned with the expanded North map the AI would not be changed. Right now the AI does not use the loops now I believe.

I meant the convoy AI. Will it be able to sail from the western part of the map to Murmansk and/or Archangelsk properly?

We would probably start the convoy slightly further east like near Halifax. What can confuse the AI is if there are land masses the convoy can move around and not find the way out of. Let's say the convoy found the south edge of Greenland and decided to move up on the west coast of Greenland. Then it would be hard to find the way back east since you need to move a lot of hexes south to get a clear path.

All this has to be experimented with if we go along that path.

Cybvep wrote:I would be fine with either the expanded map or status quo. However, while moving Omsk a bit and adding some hexes to the US mainland won't be a big issue, the changes in Northern Europe are a different story. How will they impact the invasion of Norway? IRL Narvik was important, will it be important in-game? How easy it will be for the Allied player to intervene in Norway? Can the convoy AI handle the "proper" route to Murmansk? Will the northern convoy be stopped when the player takes Murmansk and Archangelsk or takes Archangelsk and cuts the Murman Railway?

The invasion of Norway won't change because Norway surrenders when Oslo falls. Adding Narvik to the map means that the Swedish Iron Ore rules will probably have to change a bit.

A big problem with Norway is that it's hard to move there so if e. g. the British land near Narvik in e. g. 1942 then it's not easy to respond to such an invasion. You can rail units to Trondheim and then move the hard way towards Narvik. Or sail units to Tromsø and move south.

If all of Norway is on the map then you need to get the units to protect the ports in soon after the conquest. That is definitely historical when we know the Germans had stationed more than 300.000 troops in Norway. They always feared an Allied invasion of Norway to cut the iron ore route.

The next issue would be fighting from the Petsamo area against Murmansk. This battlefield saw little action until the Germans started to withdraw in 1944. So we might want to add more tundra hexes in the north. Tundra will give supply level 2 (-1 to movement) and not possible to invade in. To discourage battles in the north we can let all units get - 1 ground attack (mech and armor can get -2 to ground attack) if stationed in tundra. Shock attack can be -1 as well.

The reason to have a discussion now is to not spend work trying to implement something that will open up a can of worms. Better to see the risks and then decide what to do.

I'm pretty sure we can find doable solutions if we expand the map in the north, but we have experience with some experienced players being very clever with finding game exploits. I won't mention names. So we had to thread carefully here.

I think that the invasion of Norway will change, because it will be even harder to repulse the Allied attack, esp. in Narvik. This may result in more players ignoring Norway. IRL the Germans were fighting both in Norway and in France at the same time, but in-game this is usually disastrous for the Axis, because it screws up the time-tables and we know that the Axis is on a very tight schedule in 1939-1941. Note that IRL the casualties during the Norway campaign were not high - "just" several thousand soldiers on both sides. Naval losses were considerable, but it's a different issue.

If the map is expanded, more units will need to be added. Probably just GARs for Petsamo and Murmasnk, though. The issue of the Murman Railway is a bigger one - currently it's not represented at all, but if Murmansk and Archangelsk are taken, there is absolutely no reason for the northern convoy to exist. It would be the same if Archangelsk was taken and Murmansk was cut off from the rest of Russia. I think that the Axis player "deserves" to get these benefits if their manages to do that.

Is it possible to also have a sample of the northern expansion of the map so we can make a better idea of this? I think those two areas (north and south) are the really worth to expand because expansions east and west will mainly serve for having a more accurate map. I don´t really think necessary to add more USA hexes but to "move" North America westwards so is not closer to Europe as it is now. Regarding Omsk it would be also more accurate to move the city eastwards meaning added difficulties to achieve USSR surrender.

At the moment No. The vote was just to see the need for the lower part of the map because it would be the lesser of the 2 and try to get it for v2.20.

The discussion for the upper part is great but would push it out farther. But since people want to talk about the bigger map than I guess not. The discussion was to be about a smaller area to improve the current game.

Cybvep wrote:I think that the invasion of Norway will change, because it will be even harder to repulse the Allied attack, esp. in Narvik. This may result in more players ignoring Norway. IRL the Germans were fighting both in Norway and in France at the same time, but in-game this is usually disastrous for the Axis, because it screws up the time-tables and we know that the Axis is on a very tight schedule in 1939-1941. Note that IRL the casualties during the Norway campaign were not high - "just" several thousand soldiers on both sides. Naval losses were considerable, but it's a different issue.

If the map is expanded, more units will need to be added. Probably just GARs for Petsamo and Murmasnk, though. The issue of the Murman Railway is a bigger one - currently it's not represented at all, but if Murmansk and Archangelsk are taken, there is absolutely no reason for the northern convoy to exist. It would be the same if Archangelsk was taken and Murmansk was cut off from the rest of Russia. I think that the Axis player "deserves" to get these benefits if their manages to do that.

The real Allies actually landed near Narvik and beat the Germans there. The only reason Narvik was recaptured was when the Allies had to withdraw from Narvik due to Case Yellow starting (May 10th 1940). The main difference you will see between now and before is that the Germans now probably need to send a unit towards Narvik when they do Weserubung. You need to get in before the Allies can respond. The Axis probably can't afford to send surface ships to Narvik so you have 1 turn to make it or you will get out of supply.

Finland will probably start with a garrison in Petsamo and Russia the same in Murmansk. All other units have to be taken from other fronts. USSR will probably have a DD unit in Murmansk and a sub in Archangel so they can protect the northern convoy slightly.

I think the northern convoy should instead go to England if Murmansk and Archangel are both Axis controlled. In GSv 2.2 we should probably stop the northern convoy if Archangel is captured. Murmansk is offmap. With Archangel cut off there is no way Russia can rail anything from Murmansk to the main Russian cities. Germany can only take Archangel from the south.

In GS you usually see the Axis go after Norway as early as turn 2. You could send the garrison from Bremen northwards on turn 1 to be in position to land in Narvik on turn 3.
Most games struggle to make a realistic Weserübüng. It's so hard to implement as well as the real Germans did. The operation was successful because the Germans gambled and got away with their gamble. In the games people know what can happen and won't be taken off guard.

It's the same about the fall of France too. The real Germans took Paris after just 6 weeks (3 game turns). No way you can repeat that in GS. So Case Yellow starts in March 1940 (if sitzkrieg) and that gives no room to also fight in Norway. The Luftwaffe dealt with Norway and Denmark before Case Yellow started in the real war.

So we need some kind of special rules for Norway. Denmark is easier because you can take Copenhagen in 1 turn with just 1 unit.

Actually, you are sort of proving my point. Operation Weserübung will become harder for the Germans and it will become harder to keep Norway as well, because the Axis will need to cover more ports. Also, since Case Yellow is always harder for the Axis in-game than IRL and the Axis operates on a tight schedule in 1939-1941, invading both France and Norway at the same time is not really feasible in CEAW. Therefore, "we need some kind of special rules for Norway".

Note that Narvik should become the most important port in Norway (currently it's not on map), so interdiction rules will probably need to be changed to reflect that.

I've struggled as the Axis after invading Norway when I just went after Oslo. The Allies landed in Bergen and it took forever to get them out of that city. I had to send some of the Luftwaffe there after the fall of France and that meant a weaker invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece. Still, I managed to kill the UK units in Bergen and get full control.

The Allies could have landed near Trondheim (simulating the real war Åndalsnes and Namsos landings). That city will be just as hard to dislodge the Allies from. This is how the current game is running.

With Narvik you have a third city the Allies can get a foothold in. The good thing for the Germans is that all unoccupied hexes in Norway will turn to Axis control once Oslo falls. So Germany can easily have airbases there while the Allies can't support their landing much.

To counter such Allied moves we need to ensure we have locations nearby where the Axis can send reinforcements. Tromsø should probably be a port town. Maybe even Bodø. So the Germans could sail in units there and have supply while attacking Narvik from 2 sides. Subs can block access to Narvik for reinforcements. If we go this way we have to make sure this war is made right.

Let's say the Allies manage to get a foothold somewhere in Norway. That means they have units tied up doing almost nothing. The Germans can screen that unit with a garrison or two if they don't want to spend effort taking the town back (using air units etc.). So the only long term problem for the Axis will be the Swedish iron ore route. What would Sweden do if Narvik was occupied by the Allies. I'm sure they would have tried to rail the iron ore during winter months all the way to an ice free port in the Baltic Sea (Luleå is not ice free). The capacity would be lower so maybe the Axis would get a reduced production (random 0-3 instead of normal 6) from the Swedish iron ore during winter turns.

The loss of Narvik was actualy something that could easily have happened in the real war. Had Case Yellow started maybe 1 week later then the Germans near Narvik would have surrendered and a UK presence combined with Norwegians could have hold out until major German reinforcements arrived. Instead the isolated Germans near Narvik recovered and regained control.

Cybvep wrote:Actually, you are sort of proving my point. Operation Weserübung will become harder for the Germans and it will become harder to keep Norway as well, because the Axis will need to cover more ports. Also, since Case Yellow is always harder for the Axis in-game than IRL and the Axis operates on a tight schedule in 1939-1941, invading both France and Norway at the same time is not really feasible in CEAW. Therefore, "we need some kind of special rules for Norway".

Note that Narvik should become the most important port in Norway (currently it's not on map), so interdiction rules will probably need to be changed to reflect that.

Taking Norway won't be harder, but holding on to some cities can be harder. We just have to make sure the benefit of doing so isn't big enough for the Allies to waste troops landing in Norway. The real Allies didn't waste any effort liberating Norway because it wasn't important for their overall strategy. If we alter the Swedish iron ore rules slightly then there is no point for the Allies to waste landing units in Narvik. The town there won't have any production and you don't disrupt German movement in the area since the Germans will sail to Petsamo past the Narvik area or rail to Petsamo via Finland.

BTW I have just remembered sth else. IRL Sweden allowed the Germans to move their troops to support Finland. The Germans didn't move by sea, but used Swedish railways, despite the fact that Sweden was a neutral country. In order to represent that, maybe the Axis should be allowed to "rail" troops from Norway to Finland and vice versa without having to conquer Sweden, if both Helsinki and Oslo are Axis-controlled? That would make it easier for the Axis player to defend Norway, because their would be able to transfer troops from Finland, if necessary. It would also become easier to defend Finland, because troops could be moved from Norway.

I think the biggest risk expanding the map northwards is not Norway, but the battle against Murmansk. Murmansk is so critical for the northern convoy that it's tempting for the Axis to send several corps units into northern Norway and make a surprise attack on Murmansk on the first turn of Barbarossa. Then the city will fall and it's hard to get back.

There weren't any big unit formations in the north. So maybe tundra hexes should have extra penalty on movement, attack and supply on corps sized units (including air units).

On the other hand it should be possible for the Germans to invest in the north and actually take Murmansk with enough effort. They just shouldn't be able to surprise attack Murmansks similar to what was possible in GS v2.1 regarding Baku. In GS v2.1 the Germans can invade Turkey and Russia won't do anything. In GS 2.5 (one name for the version) we could have a rule that German presence of corps sized units east of Tromsø would activate Russia for the Allies. Then Russia can rail in units there in time.

Cybvep wrote:BTW I have just remembered sth else. IRL Sweden allowed the Germans to move their troops to support Finland. The Germans didn't move by sea, but used Swedish railways, despite the fact that Sweden was a neutral country. In order to represent that, maybe the Axis should be allowed to "rail" troops from Norway to Finland and vice versa without having to conquer Sweden, if both Helsinki and Oslo are Axis-controlled? That would make it easier for the Axis player to defend Norway, because their would be able to transfer troops from Finland, if necessary. It would also become easier to defend Finland, because troops could be moved from Norway.

Yes, that is a good idea. Germany should be allowed to rail units to / from Norwegian cities from Narvik and southwards even if there is no rail link to Oslo. As a matter of fact the rail line from Narvik ONLY goes into Sweden. There is no rail line from Narvik connecting other cities.

The Norwegian rail network northwards from Trondheim ended in Grong (about 200 km north of Trondheim) when the war begun. In July 1940 the line expanded further into Mosjøen in Nordland. The Germans started to expand the rail line northwards. Most of the expansion was built by prisoners of war from countries like Yugoslavia and Russia. In March 1942 the line was extended to Mo i Rana. When the war ended the line was not far from Bodø. Still it wasn't until 1962 until the Norwegians managed to get the rail network all the way to Bodø.

Look here: