@barnee looks interesting, we’ll give that a try, albeit only the Europen side of things
Redesign 1941 Setup on v5 1942.2 San Francisco Experiment
-
If you are sure about an extra tp for britain, let’s put it in Persian gulf or south Africa, not in India.
-
Persian Gulf offer more opening strategies: either for fast reinforcement in Egypt or landing forces in East Indies.
I’m not in any hurry to add it somewhere.
I thought about India so it gives opening UK1 even more variability due to Fg+TcB attacking Battleship even more unpredictable results.
IJN take a risk and blast all the SZ (60%) or it is a draw and both (15%) planes and BB are sunk but TP survives or (25%) both BB and TP make it through.
It is kind of sweetening the pot for Japan, but it is in no way a piece of cake for them. It usually lost 1 plane and often 2. This restraint the other land attack support on J2. Sometimes, it seems rather better to wait for more naval fodder before launching the attack on UK’s Battleship.
For me, it is an opportunity for high risk, high reward matter.
And J1 can end the same way as you wanted: no additional TP in Indian SZ. -
I think an additional British transport in India is potentially interesting, but also potentially overkill, and not my preferred method for solving what I see as a problem involving too many Japanese infantry starting in the mainland. The British start with transports in Canada, Scotland, Gold Coast, and Australia. Germany has good odds to pick off the Gold Coast transport if they want to, but that is expensive for Germany in terms of available subs – if Germany wants to kill the Gold Coast tp, then they have to either let the Canadian transport live (which means guarding France and NWE pretty heavily) or divert 3+ planes to attack the British navy (which means additional Russian planes will survive) or let the Gibraltar task force live (which means that Britain can rally in the Atlantic and build up a home fleet that will be a big problem by UK3 or so). I like giving Germany these tough choices. If Britain starts out with a tp in India, then they have 2 tps in the Pacific (India + ANZAC) even without the Gold Coast tp, and 2 tps is probably plenty given that they’re only producing 3 to 5 units a turn in the region, so sinking the Gold Coast tp is a less interesting target for Germany and Germany has a much easier time making decisions on G1. Plus, the OOB game starts with transports in India and Australia. I like that our starting position is a bit different.
There is a lot of parameters to calibrate.
Just enough units in UK to make a Sea Lion possible.
Not too much unit in Canada so Japan invading Alaska is not on the beginning too much to handle.
Pacific ICs are draining around 15 IPCs or more to provide a correct opposition to Japan.
India need a full land built up each turn but ANZAC can be useful to bring a few naval units (DDs or Subs).
ANZAC ICs are a magnet because not adding any unit makes an easier target for Japan.
Still, the 1 IPC unit is quite describing the utter limitation of Australian and New Zealand mobilization and population.If UK doesn’t capture Dakar IC in French West Africa (for USA purpose: reminding about Sierra Leone?), it left around 15 IPCs in UK to built up an attack on Germany.
Is it enough ? IDK. I would have to try abandoning ANZAC to increase UK to see if it is enough to threat Germany and still defend India.
Giving a set-up TP allows more actions in PTO without compromising the real effort which have to be done in Europe.
From a strategic POV, maybe ANZAC is only a distraction (but playing with more warships is so cool!!!) because the real money is in France, NWE and Norway and disrupting Barbarossa remains the thing to do.Maybe the +1 PUs VTs bonus per turn for a given power and +1 PUs VTs bonus to share amongst alliance powers at the end of each round will solve the lack of money for UK. IDK.
Still it is not made to correct the too many Infantry issue in mainland Asia.
I rather try your way on that one and left 1 art and 3 Inf in Kiangsu while moving 2 Infantry on Japan for 6 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Tank.What do you think about striping 1 Infantry from Caroline Islands but adding 1 more Artillery for 3 Inf, 1 Art?
It would increase the possibility to attack harder all airfields around (Hawaii, Midway, Wake) but make no difference on defense (that way it may even be possible that Borneo and East Indies get 1 less unit to keep this Artillery on a better use elsewhere. (More tactic involved than just flying 2 Infs in East Indies and Borneo.) Do IJN want to loose this attacking power unit to get the best defense?
I would add a UK Destroyer in New Zealand SZ (so Cruiser cannot bombard if amphib J1).
Seems more plausible they have a few naval defense and gives more defensive choice for ANZAC on UK1 NCM, since it is also out of position (unless New Guinea is captured). -
I like all these ideas. That sounds correct. :-)
+1 DD in New Zealand, swap 1 inf for 1 art in Carolines, move 2 inf from kiangsu to Tokyo, and maybe +1 inf to E. Canada. No extra transports.
Britain can defend all colonies, or allow 1-2 colonies to become vulnerable to enable a serious assault on France/Norway. It’s a very interesting choice.
-
I like all these ideas. That sounds correct. :-)
+1 DD in New Zealand, swap 1 inf for 1 art in Carolines, move 2 inf from kiangsu to Tokyo, and maybe +1 inf to E. Canada. No extra transports.
Britain can defend all colonies, or allow 1-2 colonies to become vulnerable to enable a serious assault on France/Norway. It’s a very interesting choice.
With an additional Destroyer and 1 Infantry in ECanada, it worth the price of a TP.
So UK can pay for it because we relieved it from buying these needed Infantry and Destroyer, anyway.
(And for Germany, sinking Eastern Canada TP and UK’s TP makes more sense if you don’t want UK gets reinforcement.)
I just think about a special way to integrate Solomon Islands into the mix.
What about giving Japan 2 or 3 StBs in Caroline Islands, that would figure Japan ability to cut shipping and trading resources between USA and ANZAC?
Controlling Solomon to move these 2 or 3 StBs allows to SBR all 3 ICs from the same spot.
It has to be done in 2 steps.
Capture J1, then moving StBs J2 in position then SBR, J3 SBR (Unless Triple A allows landing of StBs in just owned TT, IDK).To accelerate this action, I would even make it Japanese on set-up (but no unit on it), anyway it worth zero IPC and change nothing for income and starting PUs.
So, end of J1 there will be 2 or 3 StBs there to make up to 6 Dmg pts to Allies on J2.
It would be a special use (like allowing only Artillery or Infantry production on chinese IC + Western China impassable except Enveki for Soviet, etc.) in which these StBs can only be use for this purpose, until destroyed.)Even the Caroline Fighter can NCM J1 to land on Solomon (already Japanese controlled color on set-up) and defend StBs.
I really would like to put 3 StBs in Caroline Islands, knowing that Japan will not sanely invested in them.
And 3 StBs vs 3 ICs with damage cap of 2 pts each are weaker than a single StB against IC with 6 pts max out (each StB being AA gunned @1).It will be only J2 that SBR will start and almost any invasion will put an end to it.
Hence explaining somehow all issues about why these Islands were invaded and fight over it early in PTO war of 1942.That way, all invasion of these atolls: Wake, Midway, Solomon will make sense for any player and give a few game hints about historical meaning of these islands.
-
Maaaaybe? That sounds like an awful lot of special rules to help simulate a temporary, moderate-strength interference with US-ANZAC shipping lanes.
What if we just started off with the Solomon Islands as Japanese and holding 1 Japanese StratB? The obvious play with that StratB is to bomb an ANZAC factory, and then after you do that, the logical place to land the bomber is the Solomon Islands. If you try to fly it to the center, then it would take a long time (J3?) to get that bomber in range of Moscow, so most players will choose to leave the StratB in place.
-
Maaaaybe? That sounds like an awful lot of special rules to help simulate a temporary, moderate-strength interference with US-ANZAC shipping lanes.
What if we just started off with the Solomon Islands as Japanese and holding 1 Japanese StratB? The obvious play with that StratB is to bomb an ANZAC factory, and then after you do that, the logical place to land the bomber is the Solomon Islands. If you try to fly it to the center, then it would take a long time (J3?) to get that bomber in range of Moscow, so most players will choose to leave the StratB in place.
It is a big maybe, I know.
Your idea is not very different than mine, only more freedom in yours.
Mine is slightly anachronistic, yours is more and leave no room for Allies to block it on J1.
But, your right about one thing.
If we don’t put right away this StB in Solomon, there is no difference between moving it from Caroline to Solomon or to South East Asia.
So, next round J2, StB will be more effective against India’s IC or even Chinese’s IC.
From a game play, it seems better to move StBs elsewhere instead of Solomon then, I agree with you.
Placing (against historical accuracy for late 1941) StB in Solomon right away will work better.As a proof of concept, would you agree to place two Japanese StBs in Solomon (which have to stay there) until destroyed?
I prefer two StBs because of 3/6 odds of loosing 1 bomber against Anzac: 2 ICs and 1 Fg in New Zealand.
It will be more of an annoyance then. And UK’s or US will probably take action to block this sooner than later.Another interesting thing about Barney made StB, is that you need boots on the ground to destroy them.
Which means Solomons have to be captured to get rid of this annoyance. -
I’m fine with 2 StratBs starting in Solomon. I really don’t see the point in limiting their movement because ANZAC targets are very nearly optimal. You cannot hit India or China unless you give up a full turn of bombing, and it’s not obvious to me that, e.g., two turns of bombing India is better than three turns of bombing ANZAC. You cannot hit Moscow or LA until J3, and you have to conquer a landing pad to make that possible; it’s not automatic.
What are you afraid that players will do if they are allowed to move their stratBs?
-
I’m fine with 2 StratBs starting in Solomon. I really don’t see the point in limiting their movement because ANZAC targets are very nearly optimal. You cannot hit India or China unless you give up a full turn of bombing, and it’s not obvious to me that, e.g., two turns of bombing India is better than three turns of bombing ANZAC. You cannot hit Moscow or LA until J3, and you have to conquer a landing pad to make that possible; it’s not automatic.
What are you afraid that players will do if they are allowed to move their stratBs?
You are totally right. While driving home, it struck me as unnecessary to limit any movement: simpler the better. It is just a bit not accurate historically on the beginning but 2 StBs in Solomons in conjunction with 3 ICs within range bring the big picture about Japan plans on “Henderson Field”. On this map, there is no Convoy Disruption and the closer we get is SBR.
If Japan player want to keep up this nuisance or move it elsewhere (if Allies are closing in) it is his strategy.Another point is that Solomon airfield building precede the invasion of New Guinea.
So, StBs on Solomons while New Guinea is UK controlled convey this schedule.After the occupation of the Solomon Islands in April 1942, the Japanese military planned to capture Port Moresby in New Guinea and Tulagi in the southern Solomons, extending their southern defensive perimeter establishing bases to support possible future advances. Seizure of Nauru, Ocean Island, New Caledonia, Fiji, and Samoa would cut supply lines between Australia and the United States, with the result of reducing or eliminating Australia as a threat to Japanese positions in the South Pacific.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henderson_Field_(Guadalcanal)
However, Rabaul in New Britain was the earliest conquest in January and February 1942. And it becomes a major Airbase for all Solomons and New Guinea campaign. It can be seen as this Air Base (since on Triple A, New Britain is not on the map.) For this reason, I added a single Infantry there. It does not worth any effort to move IJN TP to protect such a low value TT, but on starting set up, it can be a little stretch to place an Infantry and 2 StBs to figure what will happen early in 1942. If IJN player want to protect it more, he can NCM the single Fg in Caroline Islands.
Anyway, both Fg and StBs are carrying the idea of important Air Bases.For the Japanese, Rabaul was important because of its proximity to the Caroline Islands, which was the site of a major Imperial Japanese Navy base on Truk. The capture of New Britain offered them a deep water harbour and airfields to provide protection to Truk and also to interdict Allied lines of communication between the United States and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rabaul_(1942)
Another point is that for once on this 1942.2 map, Japan will start with possible options for SBR in Redesign rules. On OOB setup, I was doing nothing J1. It gives a glimpse of how to use this different unit when you see such bombers so far away from Japan and so near of enemy’s ICs.
Here I made a lot of changes to increase Soviet possibilities, for R2.
I still like it very much that only Tank can move on Karelia R1 if it falls on G1.
There is much more Tanks which can come to help of Leningrad (up to five!).
Another harder choice to make due to Soviet disorganised High command.
Things will work as usual on R2 (Infantry being fodder and covering big hitter.)
I made Vologda a Tankograd theme only (2 Tanks).
Evenki get another Infantry.
I added 1 German Tank (to just compensate a bit for all additional Soviet Tanks), so there will be a Soviet vs German Tank and Arty around R3 or R4 due to Germany Infantry lack of on front TTs.In South Pacific, there is more AAA to get a passive defense against any incoming J1 attack, at least to be a mixed challenge against a full 4 Infs+2 Art blast.
I also increased Hawaii by 1 Inf.
There is much more as we just talked about New Zealand DD and Eastern Canada Inf.
New Guinea (Port Moresby) received an Infantry (to balance for Solomons IJN Infantry.)
A combat will be more interesting, this TT was contested even early 1942.
I can also confirmed now that you must control the land to destroy StBs in Solomons.
StBs are no regular combat fighting forces and are well hidden!
:-) -
On Sea Lion, the only way I see it as viable is if there is enough Infantry in Archangel, Karelia, Ukraine and West Russia, to hold some of these TTs with 1 Infantry to fall back up to two rows to launch an effective Sea Lion which will deplete Germany, Baltic, Norway and NWEurope. Meanwhile Soviet will have reach a large income basis.
If not enough Infantry to be picket fodder, it becomes harder to sacrifice Art or Tank to hold position.
Most of my early G playtests purchase are max Inf and 1 or 2 Art to left no single unused IPC. Pretty boring, but necessary to hold Red Army at bay without too much losses of Tank and Art.
Do you think giving on setup an additional TP to Germany may help making Sea Lion a possibility without off balancing Soviet front?
Don’t forget, Med TPs have to capture Gibraltar, this leave 1 round relief and more if going against UK.
Or, is it that we must add more Inf and Art on NWE or France or Norway (7 IPCs same cost as an additional TP)? So Germany can use these units to load up TP for the early amphib assault (G2 to G4 max)?
Worst, do you think Germany need around 5 Infantry split between NWE, France and Norway to not emptied too much Europe when purchasing on G1 a Carrier (14 IPCs) to defend its invasion fleet?With only 30 IPCs on G1, it provides a CV, 1 TP and only 3 Infs (Italy IC).
G2 40 IPCs purchase is more substantial but you need 1 more TP and it left 11 Infs.
Then you may proceed G3 but, your Tank and Art have to retreat to not loose them because there is not enough Inf coming fast from Germany.I’m wondering if to solve this issue, we should not totally reversed Germany setup, a lot of Infantry with Art and a few Tank. On Barbarossa, Germany had more Infantry readied on Eastern Front than in any invasion.
Soviet had more Tanks and Aircrafts.What do you think could happen if 4 German Tanks (in France, NWE, Berlin) were converted to 8 Infantry, split 50-50 between Poland and Romania? Even more, including Southern Europe Tank, add 10 Infs, 5 on both TTs ready for Barbarossa?
Instead of 11 Tanks, Germany would have 6 available and will seems inferior to 8 Soviet starting tanks.It would be :
Poland: 9 Infantry, 1 Art, 2 Tanks, 1 Fg, 2 TcBs
Romania: 8 Infantry, 2 Art, 1 Tank, 1 Fg, 1 TcB
Southern Europe: 4 Infantry, 1 Art
Germany: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 AAAs, 1 TcB, 1 StB
France: 3 Infantry, 1 AAA, 1 Tank -
Solomon / ANZAC Tweaks
These are fine – it adds flavor, and it doesn’t break anything.
Tanks in Leningrad
Can you explain why you want Russia to take back Leningrad with 5 tanks? That seems wildly ahistorical to me. I don’t think Tankograd was really operational at the start of Barbarossa – half of Leningrad’s industrial work force was relocated to the Urals in response to the German invasion, and it took them several months after they arrived to re-assemble the machines and start cranking out mass-produced tanks again. At setup, the workers would not have even reached Vologda yet, let alone had time to manufacture two tank divisions.
From a tactical point of view, I’m also not really understanding why it’s fun or interesting for Germany and Russia to be forced into a giant tank battle on G2/R2, but for them to use mostly infantry on all other turns.
There is also the problem that placing multiple tanks in Siberia at game start allows the Soviets to flood China with tanks, which is not accurate – there would have been no way to maintain the supply lines for all of the gasoline, ammo, and spare parts all the way across the Kazakh prairies, Gobi Desert, Tibetan Mountains, Szechuan jungles, etc. Putting 4 Russian tanks in China on R1 will seriously disturb any Japanese strategy…even if the Japanese send a couple of transports’ worth of troops to take Kwangtung and Buryatia, they are too vulnerable to a 1-2-3 punch from the British, Russians, and Chinese.
Sea Lion
I think the biggest problem with Sea Lion here is that the Allies start the game with moderate naval and air superiority over London, which is historical. By 1941, it was really too late for Germany to launch a Sea Lion attack without a massive redirection of resources. I think that if Germany is trying to seriously threaten London, it should only conquer one row of Russian territory (Baltic / Belo / Ukraine) and just stack those territories hard, weighted more toward Baltic than Ukraine. That way the same infantry can defend against Russian counter-attacks and be ready to deploy onto Baltic Sea transports.
I do not support a second Baltic transport. In real life, the Russians mined Leningrad’s harbor, so the Germans were not really able to ship over significant numbers of troops anywhere east of the Finnish front lines anyway, let alone east of Leningrad / Lake Ladoga.
I think you can tinker with the Western European garrisons if you want to, but it’s not obvious to me that a lack of available German infantry is the problem. It’s just hard to invade London after the USA is already in the war and the UK has had a bit of a chance to build up its homeland defense and fighter corps. I don’t think there will be any way for the Germans to force a Sea Lion against an alert Britain…the best they can do is force Britain to spend more money than it wanted to on placing infantry in London, exposing (some of) Britian’s overseas colonies to Japanese invasion and/or slowing down the progress of the British Atlantic fleet. I’m OK with that.
Adding German infantry to the eastern front
With only the infantry available in your v5 setup, I thought I showed that the Germans have a crushing advantage. I don’t understand why you would want to add even more German infantry.
General Note
You have obviously acquired a very detailed and wide-ranging knowledge of the relevant history for this setup, but I don’t think you’re pausing to apply that knowledge in a thoughtful, measured way. It is not enough to say “Oh, Russia had 9,000 tanks” and then put 9 Russian tank divisions on the map. There’s no exact equivalence between historical unit strengths and the number of pieces that go on the board, partly because of all the variation in leadership, logistics, technology, training, terrain, etc., and partly because the game needs edits from “real life” in order to be fun and balanced for all players.
I am starting to get frustrated with what I see as the careless brainstorming that you are using to come up with ideas for the European front. Every time I come back to this thread, you have a totally new distribution of units for Barbarossa. You always offer a couple of interesting reasons for your new distributions, but I don’t think you’re putting your changes in context or testing your designs to make sure that Germany and Russia are at least roughly balanced against each other.
You’ve shared some thoughts about your overarching vision for how the Barbarossa front is supposed to play out, i.e., Germany has enough troops to advance to the gates of Moscow for two turns, and then Germany runs out of troops so Russia starts to be able to make successful counterattacks. What I don’t see is how you’re organizing the starting forces to make this vision a reality. Which territories do you want Germany to occupy, specifically? How many troops does Germany need to seize them? How many troops does Russia need for a successful counter-attack against those troops? How many troops short is Russia from being able to make that counter-attack, and how many turns will it take Russia to accumulate those missing troops, and how many more troops will Germany be able to advance to the front line while Russia is stockpiling its reinforcements, and why and when will Russia be able to accumulate troops on the front line faster than Germany, and what could disturb that balance in one direction or the other?
I don’t expect you to answer all of these questions correctly on version 6 of our map, but if you’re not even trying to work through these questions before posting a map file, then I probably don’t want to playtest it.
More generally, I would like to start wrapping this project up – I’d like to converge on a map that we’re both happy with, and then be done and show our work to the rest of the community for alpha playtesting. This suggests that we need to be making smaller changes (+1 inf here, move 1 artillery around over there) rather than bigger changes (swap out all infantry for tanks and vice versa). I want to start building on the knowledge we’ve already accumulated from the first 8 versions or so of our map, instead of constantly starting from scratch with radically new designs.
This is a really fun map, and I think you and I are able to complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses very well, and I’ve enjoyed working with you on it, but I wanted to be honest about my growing frustration.
-
Thanks again for all the answers on many points.
Just a few aspects for now help you see I’m not going everywhere with Russian front.
About total switch from Tank to Infantry, I assumed it was a real paradigm shift. That’s why I did not bother to move anything and send a snapshot. Just general talk on that one.However, on V6, I addressed a few issues about stacking Caucasus and not being able to hold on G2 or appear to be so huge that Germany will wait G3 before punching this bag. I switched 1 Infantry into 1 Tank (+2A +1 Def, but more mobile attack for a possible R1 counter somewhere.)
Russia also get another AAA which can be send into Caucasus. And Vologda receiving another Tank, it makes for another 3 defense points more into Caucasus R1. And I didn’t add any unit on German front, only one additional Tank in NWE for “balance”, which I based upon 1942.2 setup (if it was there later in war, it seems ok to have a few units remaining from France invasion). Because there is 11 Armor on 1942.2 OOB set up, and Germany is much deeper in Russia. How can it be possible to reach Moscow if you have more TTs to fight for, a lesser starting income, a still stronger UK’s fleet to consider on the beginning, M3 US TPs and Cruiser (wasting no time next round to unload ground units once purchased), and not at least the same number of Germany’s ground units ?When I talked about 5 Tanks, it was not my intent to suggest it was a sound strategy to move all-in in such a deadzoned TT as Karelia, just that Soviet changes increase in Mechanized units allows to reach it in many ways to cover this flank and to not let fall in German’s hands too early. But still I like the cost in unprotected Tank payed by Soviet if Finland units are able to storm Karelia.
It conveys the same message about how this front is not well organized on R1 for Soviet. R2 things will be better coordinated.
I know Tankograd will product later in war, but on October 1941 real Siberian Tank division come to help fighting and delaying the northern army group trying to invade Leningrad.
On your Japan full attack on Asia (to center crush hard), I saw it can be necessary to leave more options to Soviet player (and you asked for more variety than a repetition of 1942.2 setup. It is possible to travel into China but we know there is much bigger fish to fry in the west.I agree that we cannot make any 1 for 1 correspondence between divisions, only impressionistic depiction.
Coming back on strategy, the issue I realized on Germany’s units distribution is that we were working on inherited setup of AA50 1941 and 1942.2 as background. But, if any of us, as player, had to built up a game invasion from scratch and place all its units where it is needed we will agree that having plenty of Inf and Art on front row is the best while Tank can be purchased later and can feed the front more faster. It does not work the other way around if you have plenty of tanks and too few fodders. Your attack will jammed near G2 because you have to wait for more Infantry purchased to reach your forward front. In that case, it is almost like you have to wait 2-3 turns before restarting the “perfect storm”: building 10 new Infantry, moving in Poland or Baltic states G3, then reaching your immobilized stack of Art and Tank in Ukraine and Belorussia G4. (Not saying that freezing your army is the thing to do, but just for the sake of understanding the point.) In fact, if we give more Soviet Infs to Karelia, Archangel, West Russia and Caucasus, this is where the front will stall back and forth anyway.
So, here is what I realized, if we want to convey the idea that Germany is a well prepared, well organized army, it should not be obvious to hard core player that you have to loose you costly units almost on starting G2 to make gains in Soviet union and more incomes. It is like you are fighting for 8 IPCs swing while you are wasting around 30 more or less IPCs TUVs to maintain your invasion in second row of TTs in Soviet Union. A bit unsound.
On G40, German player can prepare his built up to launch Barbarossa, if he wishes.
There is no room for that here, it is up to you and me.
I would like to recreate a G1 june 1941, G2 end at the gate of Moscow dec 1941 dynamics. R2, winter 1942 “Siberian reinforcement” counter attack effect.
How to get it while leaving enough room for Soviet player strategic or tactical freedom, I’m still looking for the best way. (And also giving more options if Germany want to try Sea Lion.) I just realized yesterday that maybe a paradigm shift was needed because we started Germany’s foundations on older OOB setups.
I knew in order to really move into that direction it needs more talking and more solitary lab work. I was talking first before making any big overhaul.
I understand you feel we were near the finalized setup to be canned with just a few tweak here and there on Eastern front. I’m ok with this. I will follow your lead on that one. (If you want to revert back Soviet Tank into Infantry and put it nearer Karelia and West Russia.)
Our actual scenario is probably not well suited for Sea Lion options, so at least we can make it a balanced setup for Barbarossa and Operation Overlord. (Which I agree with you, we were not that far.)And as you said, if I want big changes, I will work them out much more before submitting a map to test.
I hope it will cool some steam off.
:wink: -
There is also the problem that placing multiple tanks in Siberia at game start allows the Soviets to flood China with tanks, which is not accurate – there would have been no way to maintain the supply lines for all of the gasoline, ammo, and spare parts all the way across the Kazakh prairies, Gobi Desert, Tibetan Mountains, Szechuan jungles, etc. Putting 4 Russian tanks in China on R1 will seriously disturb any Japanese strategy…even if the Japanese send a couple of transports’ worth of troops to take Kwangtung and Buryatia, they are too vulnerable to a 1-2-3 punch from the British, Russians, and Chinese.
What about closing totally Western China, but adding another IC in Sinkang or 1 or 2 more Infs to simulate their populations reservoir?
That way, if Soviet want to attack with Tanks it will be via Amur and Trans-Siberian to Vladivostok.
On VTs topic, do you believe that Rio Brazil can really be fight for by Germany?
IMO, it is a gift to USA.
Think about placing it either in Archangel (to help Moscow) or moving it to Truk in Caroline Islands to be a target for UK or USA.
(Or even in Western Canada to be another target up north, but this is less interesting.)I just want as much as possible to streamline VTs according to 20-30-40 lists.
If you don’t want, I can wait and try somehow to launch one Med TP to fight over Rio, once Gibraltar will be captured. But, from my biased (aim to test other things) play-tests, it is either Stalingrad, Cairo or even London which attract Med TPs attention.
-
All right, that all makes much more sense – I’m sorry I criticized your methods so harshly. I am under some stress at work right now, and I may have been trying to take some of it out on you.
How Germany Can Expect to Win From 1941
In the 1942.2 OOB setup, Germany has 29 infantry and 3 artillery. Of those, Russia typically kills off 6 inf, 2 art (West Russia & Ukraine attack) before Germany even gets to move. So Germany will usually start G1 with 23 inf + 1 art = 24 walking units.
In your San Fran Alpha 0.5 1941 setup, Germany starts with 35 infantry and 6 artillery, and Germany gets to go first, so Germany will always start G1 with 35 + 6 = 41 walking units – almost twice as many walking units as the 1942 starting position.
Similarly, in 1942.2 OOB, Germany starts with 4 subs and 7 planes. It has two tiny fleets with one transport each, but they are very badly exposed, and Germany must take drastic measures to keep either of them alive until G2, let alone G3.
In SF Alpha 0.5 1941, Germany starts with 10 subs and 10 warplanes, plus a pair of reasonably well-protected fleets (BB + DD + tran in Baltic, BB + 2 CA + 2 DD + 2 tran in Med).
I think tanks come out roughly the same.
So Germany is “ahead” by about 180 IPCs’ worth of units in the 1941 setup relative to the 1942 setup. Yes, Germany has more tasks to accomplish (more British fleets to kill, more Russian fleets to kill, more Russian planes to kill, more Russian territories to take, etc.), but even allowing for serious losses (let’s say you lose 4 subs and 4 planes on G1 – that is a loss of $64) and even if it takes you 2 full turns just to get to the 1942 front lines (a loss of at most $10 on G1 and $5 on G2) that still leaves Germany well ahead of the game.
As you say, the Allies also have advantages…more starting troops in Africa, faster transports, a better-defended China, factories in ANZAC, etc. But Germany has enough “extra value” left over in its starting setup to have a fair shot at counteracting these advantages, I think.
Setting up tank battles
I did not fully understand this paragraph you wrote:
So, here is what I realized, if we want to convey the idea that Germany is a well prepared, well organized army, it should not be obvious to hard core player that you have to loose you costly units almost on starting G2 to make gains in Soviet union and more incomes. It is like you are fighting for 8 IPCs swing while you are wasting around 30 more or less IPCs TUVs to maintain your invasion in second row of TTs in Soviet Union. A bit unsound.
This sounds interesting. Can you say more about this?
In general, I approve of the idea of trying to show that germany was organized for war and russia was not. I am still unclear on how you want to do that, but I would like to learn more.
By the way, if you want to experiment with switching out many of germany’s tanks for extra infantry, we can explore that together – I have calmed down now and I can see why that would be interesting. We may decide to abandon that fork and go back to v5 or v6 or even earlier, but I do think it’s worth at least testing a version of that. I may try to create a radically new setup myself along those lines, that you can test if you wish.
-
Soviet Tanks in Western China
I think totally closing off Western China to prevent Soviet tanks there is overkill. I like having a small, limited connection b/w Russia and China. It’s not easy to cross the Gobi Desert, but it’s not impossible, either…if China had totally fallen, then that would have provided Japan with some access to central Siberia.
Victory Cities
I am not very concerned about Rio being a “gift” to the USA. First of all, the point of a victory city is not necessarily to be a target that both sides can fight over with equal chances. Romania/Ploesti is a gift to Germany; Manila is a gift to Japan, etc. That’s fine.
Second, both Germany and Japan have some chance to reach Rio in the endgame – if Japan conquers ANZAC, then Argentina is the natural next target, and Brazil comes next after Argentina. Similarly, if Germany takes Gibraltar, then a move to French West Africa to liberate / reinforce the Vichy factory is natural, and FWA is one move from Brazil. This will not happen in most games, but it will happen in some.
Third, just because Brazil is easy for Allies to grab does not mean that Brazil is automatic for Allies to grab. Yes, the Allies can take Brazil if they want it, but the point is, they have to. The Allies have to spend at least some resources taking and holding South America, or else that affects the victory situation on the map. This is as it should be.
I’m willing to move Ottawa -> Rekyavik by way of compromise, but Rio stays.
Likewise, I am not sure Truk is needed when we already have Manila, Honolulu, and Panama City, but I will add Truk as VC #25 if it is important to you.
-
All right, that all makes much more sense – I’m sorry I criticized your methods so harshly. I am under some stress at work right now, and I may have been trying to take some of it out on you.
How Germany Can Expect to Win From 1941
In the 1942.2 OOB setup, Germany has 29 infantry and 3 artillery. Of those, Russia typically kills off 6 inf, 2 art (West Russia & Ukraine attack) before Germany even gets to move. So Germany will usually start G1 with 23 inf + 1 art = 24 walking units.
In your San Fran Alpha 0.5 1941 setup, Germany starts with 35 infantry and 6 artillery, and Germany gets to go first, so Germany will always start G1 with 35 + 6 = 41 walking units – almost twice as many walking units as the 1942 starting position.
Similarly, in 1942.2 OOB, Germany starts with 4 subs and 7 planes. It has two tiny fleets with one transport each, but they are very badly exposed, and Germany must take drastic measures to keep either of them alive until G2, let alone G3.
In SF Alpha 0.5 1941, Germany starts with 10 subs and 10 warplanes, plus a pair of reasonably well-protected fleets (BB + DD + tran in Baltic, BB + 2 CA + 2 DD + 2 tran in Med).
I think tanks come out roughly the same.
So Germany is “ahead” by about 180 IPCs’ worth of units in the 1941 setup relative to the 1942 setup. Yes, Germany has more tasks to accomplish (more British fleets to kill, more Russian fleets to kill, more Russian planes to kill, more Russian territories to take, etc.), but even allowing for serious losses (let’s say you lose 4 subs and 4 planes on G1 – that is a loss of $64) and even if it takes you 2 full turns just to get to the 1942 front lines (a loss of at most $10 on G1 and $5 on G2) that still leaves Germany well ahead of the game.
As you say, the Allies also have advantages…more starting troops in Africa, faster transports, a better-defended China, factories in ANZAC, etc. But Germany has enough “extra value” left over in its starting setup to have a fair shot at counteracting these advantages, I think.
Setting up tank battles
I did not fully understand this paragraph you wrote:
So, here is what I realized, if we want to convey the idea that Germany is a well prepared, well organized army, it should not be obvious to hard core player that you have to loose you costly units almost on starting G2 to make gains in Soviet union and more incomes. It is like you are fighting for 8 IPCs swing while you are wasting around 30 more or less IPCs TUVs to maintain your invasion in second row of TTs in Soviet Union. A bit unsound.
This sounds interesting. Can you say more about this?
In general, I approve of the idea of trying to show that germany was organized for war and russia was not. I am still unclear on how you want to do that, but I would like to learn more.
By the way, if you want to experiment with switching out many of germany’s tanks for extra infantry, we can explore that together – I have calmed down now and I can see why that would be interesting. We may decide to abandon that fork and go back to v5 or v6 or even earlier, but I do think it’s worth at least testing a version of that. I may try to create a radically new setup myself along those lines, that you can test if you wish.
I’m glad you like the idea: Germany organized, Russia not.
If you want to create the V7 setup, I would be very grateful because I will not have much time until Saturday.
Thanks for really make the count on Germany numbers.
I never thought there was that much Infantry.If Japan do not invade it, Soviet Union will get probably more or less: R0 32 PUs, R1 26 PUs, R2 24 PUs, R3 17 PUs.
So, by R4 there will be near 100 PUs of unit added on board to resist Germany.
It means, around 30 Infantry to oppose German army in Soviet Union to added to Soviet units in Karelia, Caucasus and all TTs around Moscow.
This may help find the level of defense which Germany have to fight.About what I said more or less correctly, I meant that the best offence, which doesn’t need to wait for slower fodder to catch frontal units to attack the next row of TTs in Soviet, is mainly built of Infantry and a few Artillery. If you can always wipe the enemy in a single combat round, you minimized damage on your side (here what are useful planes and Tank).
Eventually, all your Infantry units will wear off and Tanks / Artillerys will be exposed to attrition attack (strafing strategy) or an annihilation battle reducing as much as possible German offensive power. But what Russia will built, will be available next round to fight. Not the case for Germany, unless TP being short cut (Med fleet) or purchasing planes.The minimal to win is to have a last tank to capture Moscow, while all your aircrafts and all fodders will be destroyed.
Until you get to Moscow, as long as Soviet have enough Infantry (with air support), he will trade German’s Art and Tank for a profit.This is the general dynamics, like a wave on the shore which finally breaks at the end.
What is the key against Russia is to oppose an Infantry stack defending @2 against russian Infantry attacking @1. In such case, battle will be difficult but TUVs swing at best will be even. Usually when this happen, I have to fall back one TT with Russia until I get enough Infantry in my stack (combined with all planes and Tanks) to make some strafing (in hope that my big hitter will hit the mark on first combat round) then retreat. If there is no opportunity to have more russian Infantry than German in a given TT, I will have to take a defensive stance and reinforced if I can no more retreat.
Germany have three zones to fill with units: north, centre and south. This also reduces the main stack of German’s Infantry (because you will not expose a single Tank in a TT, if you have other means to control it).
Destroying German’s artillery and Tank and loose Soviet Infantry is the main objective for Russia.
As long as German’s army have a lot of fodder, Germany can marches on toward Moscow. Then, have to stop to replenish his front, then continuing with the new influx of Infantry.
It is at this condition, than a final showdown with Russia will be a real conquest (if Germany only loose Infantry and keep intact his Tank and planes).
My paradigm shift is to give minimal Tank and Arty on start but a lot of Infantry. Reinforcement will follow, if Germany purchase more Tank and planes.
For example, let’s suppose for G1 and G2, the main issue for Germany is to decide where to give support with Tank and Art.
In the worst case, he may have to rely upon planes to reach a maximum punch to limit the number of defending round and rolls.However, Infantry attack rolls are less reliable and the more there is combat round, the more you loose attacking units. (Japan in Kiangsu against Anwhei can provides the model I got in my mind.)
From another aspect:
To make things more interesting as purchaser for Germany, you will prefer to have to buy warships, Art, Tank or planes.
This is only possible if you have a lot of Infantry but lacking of heavy hitter to support these units you will buy them to increase your attack factor for your Infantry.I don’t think I’m very clear. I got the intuition but I need more time to get familiar with this idea and be able to better understand and explain it.
P.S. I see no offence, our method sometimes use pictures instead of more words. And without enough infos about intents and other reasons to put something here or there, it can be irritating.
-
Soviet Tanks in Western China
I think totally closing off Western China to prevent Soviet tanks there is overkill. I like having a small, limited connection b/w Russia and China. It’s not easy to cross the Gobi Desert, but it’s not impossible, either…if China had totally fallen, then that would have provided Japan with some access to central Siberia.
Victory Cities
I am not very concerned about Rio being a “gift” to the USA. First of all, the point of a victory city is not necessarily to be a target that both sides can fight over with equal chances. Romania/Ploesti is a gift to Germany; Manila is a gift to Japan, etc. That’s fine.
Second, both Germany and Japan have some chance to reach Rio in the endgame – if Japan conquers ANZAC, then Argentina is the natural next target, and Brazil comes next after Argentina. Similarly, if Germany takes Gibraltar, then a move to French West Africa to liberate / reinforce the Vichy factory is natural, and FWA is one move from Brazil. This will not happen in most games, but it will happen in some.
Third, just because Brazil is easy for Allies to grab does not mean that Brazil is automatic for Allies to grab. Yes, the Allies can take Brazil if they want it, but the point is, they have to. The Allies have to spend at least some resources taking and holding South America, or else that affects the victory situation on the map. This is as it should be.
I’m willing to move Ottawa -> Rekyavik by way of compromise, but Rio stays.
Likewise, I am not sure Truk is needed when we already have Manila, Honolulu, and Panama City, but I will add Truk as VC #25 if it is important to you.
No need to hurry on these ones.
My reason is mainly practical, to harmonize Barney VTs appearing on Global Map (40 VTs) and 1942.2 Map (20 and 30 VTs) now 24 VTs.In fact, my very first suggestion, if I remember correctly was 24 VTs and included Rio. But this was before discussions which help expand the list to 20-30-40.
Rio is after all, the only VTs on that Continental mass. -
Here is a few differences I noticed by just changing most German Tanks which were West of Poland and Romania into Infantry (1 Tank = 2 Infantry) then placed: 5 in Poland and 5 in Romania.
Germany gets only 6 Tanks in Europe to start with.1- More variety in purchase: my first purchase as Germany have to be mixed, Germany is craving for heavy and fast moving hitter (Tanks and planes) but if not building Infantry, the initial wave will fade off exposing Tank and Artillery. In addition, if you choose Navy on G1, it is less compromising: you can deal with no additional Infantry influx for G2 assault.
2- A large increase in Infantry which may hold off Russian counter longer (think about infantry stack reinforced by fighter), leave room to strategically opt for Sea Lion instead of singly focus on Moscow.
3- Anecdotal: it took more than just 1 round to get rid of Ukraine, which implied 2 more Infantry loss. An Infantry stack survives longer but have less punch on opening combat round. This creates an opportunity for the attacker to choose different pressure point according to which battle you put into planes and Tank.
4- 2 Infantry are less mobile than 1 Tank, it means more predictability on the Russian front about where can be the major attack, it gives more time to react. All Soviet army stack doesn’t need to fall back everywhere, only where the main German stack deadzoned a TT. And sometimes, 2 Infantry @1 against 1 Infantry @2 bring interesting not so predictable TUV swing according to the first attack round.
5- German army made of mostly Infantry (and art back up) better radicalized the choice between South, Center or Northern Army group. The way German player’s split his stack give very different strategic opportunities, for both sides, and increase the impact of the decision. Do you stack all your army in Western Russia, at the risk of being almost destroyed by Soviet? Do you go north, so Caucasus Infantry cannot easily foddered an attack on your forces? Do you go south, and be stalled longer because German Baltic Army cannot reinforced Ukraine but have to fight Leningrad.
6- It gives a sense of slow moving in G1 and G2, your armies are massive but going one path is compromising. With a lot of tank, you feel the Eastern Front is mobile and about moving Tank where is Russian Pocket resistances. IMO, the Infantry push gives a better feel of how Germany is a bulldozer. Later G4-5, there will be less units on board and it will be anyway this kind of mobile combat. The only time it is possible to do different is on opening set-up.
7- I made a test where it was possible to place G2 all Germans Infantry and Tank in Western Russia (while Karelia and Ukraine were captured). Exactly as 1941 december last attack on Moscow.
In that case, Russian stack was in Caucasus and R2 attack West Russia with Moscow reinforcement.
It was a 97% odds to destroyed everything, but saving only 2 planes and 1 T-34 Tank.
Both sides have to rebuilt forces but it clears up Eastern Front.
IMO, it gives an historical play-pattern. You may play otherwise because it all depends about how Germany want to use his Infantry stack, on offense (as fodder) or defense (with double combat values) but with no plane reinforcement? Both can suit players.8- It provides a real change for Russia to have more Tanks and less Infantry and even more than 2 planes depending on G1 decisions. It can be a defensive play (using @2 Infantry advantage) or offensive (including strafing) on specific German stack. It is now possible because of 5 available Tanks on beginning and at least 1 Fg+1TcB, this 22 attacks points can make a big difference according to where Soviet player apply pressure.
9- It brings a real paradigm shift on the usual way of Eastern front depiction, for once, and traditional OOB game flow, as a second real original change. This change seems very promising. Even if it needs more adjustment to find the balanced level of Infantry and Tanks on both sides.
Moscow is 4 TTs from Germany. An invincible army would take G4 to finish off Russia. If G1 is unopposed, I believe you may suppose 2 Soviet counter, delaying to G6 to get the epic fight. This provide at least 5 reinforcement rounds.
Now I’m actually pushing the envelop further by adding more Infantry (Norway and France and NWE) and Art (on G and Romania, but less Inf) and less Tank. Bringing more Infantry, to give opportunity and time to either built Tanks or TPs according to Moscow must fall or London must fall.
Infantry on Western far side will take much longer to reach Eastern front anyway (same time as being built up). The point is giving Germany essentially Infantry and few Tanks, allows player to choose what he want to do both strategically (goal) and tactically (means).The idea is to let Germany purchase pattern being more : G1-G2 costlier units, G3-G4 mixed, later game Infantry (fortress Europe).
Looking about Barbarossa myths I got some numbers:
Myth 5) The vast numerical superiority enjoyed by the Soviets
Nazi propaganda nurtured the image of Germans fighting against innumerable masses from the East, but this is just a racist propaganda. In actual fact, the war on the Eastern Front in 1941 was characterised by a Soviet inferiority in pure numbers. On 22 June 1941, the four Soviet western military districts between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea had 2.3 million men, opposed to nearly 4.5 million Axis troops. The Wehrmacht had amassed 3.35 million troops. To this the Romanian army contributed 600,000, and in the north, Finland had already mobilised its army and could muster 530,000 men.When the Red Army counter-attacked at Moscow in December 1941, the Soviet numerical inferiority was even larger. Soviet strength returns in archives show that on 1 December 1941, the Soviets were able to muster 576,500 soldiers and 574 tanks against German Army Group Centre which at the time had between 1.9 and 1.2 million troops with 1,800 tanks and assault guns. The Germans not only enjoyed a three-fold numerical superiority in tanks, but of the Soviet tanks employed against them at Moscow, only around 30 per cent were T-34s or KVs, with the remainder being completely obsolete tankettes.
As the war continued, the Germans gradually lost their numerical superiority which reflects the greater Soviet industrial capacity but their most brilliant victories in 1941 were achieved with a convincing numerical superiority.
http://www.historyextra.com/article/feature/operation-barbarossa-9-popular-myths-busted
-
About Norway, it is still an issue.
On G1, German navy have to fight Cruiser and Sub.
On UK1 and US1, it is possible to launch a Norway invasion and block drastically Baltic Navy.
G2, you have to retake. If UK2 or US2 not doing anything, it is only G3 you may get out.
But, Norway becomes a gamey way (not that historical) to protect UK’s fleet.M3 TP and Cruiser essentially makes Norway the first juicy target to help Russia for Allies.
I don’t think it is necessary to increase the incentive on it.For all my play-tests, it reveals as an hindrance to play a Battle of Atlantic. I cannot launch any Subs built by Germany from Baltic.
At least, I’m testing in Germany Infantry push increasing to 4 Infantry both Norway (+1 AAA) and Finland. Might help to not get too early this Norway invasion. If, I move Infantry out of Norway, Germany will be responsible if Allies attack it.
What is working for sure, is making Norway a strategic key point you need to protect Allies from Baltic fleet. Or Germany need to hold if he wants to destroy Allies fleet around UK.
It is still possible to built Sub with NWE IC, but they are vulnerable to an immediate counter from Air attack. Baltic BB allows to shield Subs built in this SZ.
-
@Baron:
About Norway, it is still an issue.
On G1, German navy have to fight Cruiser and Sub.
On UK1 and US1, it is possible to launch a Norway invasion and block drastically Baltic Navy.
G2, you have to retake. If UK2 or US2 not doing anything, it is only G3 you may get out.
But, Norway becomes a gamey way (not that historical) to protect UK’s fleet.M3 TP and Cruiser essentially makes Norway the first juicy target to help Russia for Allies.
I don’t think it is necessary to increase the incentive on it.For all my play-tests, it reveals as an hindrance to play a Battle of Atlantic. I cannot launch any Subs built by Germany from Baltic.
At least, I’m testing in Germany Infantry push increasing to 4 Infantry both Norway (+1 AAA) and Finland. Might help to not get too early this Norway invasion. If, I move Infantry out of Norway, Germany will be responsible if Allies attack it.
What is working for sure, is making Norway a strategic key point you need to protect Allies from Baltic fleet. Or Germany need to hold if he wants to destroy Allies fleet around UK.
It is still possible to built Sub with NWE IC, but they are vulnerable to an immediate counter from Air attack. Baltic BB allows to shield Subs built in this SZ.
I made a few tests.
As you first suggested, I would try to allow Baltic Navy to cross strait when Norway is Axis controlled.
NWE should not be relevant.It needs to edit when crossing with German Navy while NWE is Allies control.
I made a lot of changes in Europe.
I tested many ways.
Here is below where I am.
Maybe, just focus on Germany, Soviet, UK and US on ETO.
Unless we feel we find a set-up which fit, I’m not sure it worth plays Japan too.I really increase units variety for Soviet Union. Even Karelia gets a Fighter and Caucasus a Tank.
As you wished much earlier along this thread, it allows for a weak counter-strike strafe, which can turn lucky for Soviet and wipe a lot of Infantry. It depends a lot on how many infantry survived the first assault and how Germany’s player distribute Infantry units and the single AAA between Belorussia and Ukraine. Even if moving hard against either Karelia or Caucasus, the remaining forces may attack from the other un-assailed TT.Germany has more difficult choices on this one IMO.
If all in against Russia, UK gets a working fleet. If UK’s fleet a priority, then a few planes will survive to R1. There is virtually no chance that Germany gets all targets, unless being lucky and taking many risks.That is why I added an undefended (last of the war) TP in the famous Greenland Gap. It is only meant to left the u-boat commander to decide whether or not UK’s warships are a priority. Dispatching 1 Sub against this lonely TP might as well meant the UK’s BB or 1 TP and 2 DDs in Easter Canada SZ to survive because of lack of enough Subs as attack or fodder…
The Mid-Atlantic Gap is a geographical term attributed to an undefended area beyond the reach of land-based RAF Coastal Command antisubmarine (A/S) aircraft during the Battle of the Atlantic in the Second World War. It is frequently known as The Black Pit, as well as the Atlantic Gap, Air Gap, Greenland Gap, or just “the Gap”. This resulted in heavy merchant shipping losses to U-boats. The gap was eventually closed in May 1943, as growing numbers of VLR Liberators (Very Long Range models) and escort carriers became available, and as basing problems were addressed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_gap
Hope you will like it.
P.S. I also changed units from Japan to Formosa to follow history and make relevant to pick units from Formosa instead of Japan:
Both the Japanese Army and the Japanese Navy developed Taiwan from a military sense. The ports of Keelung (Kirun or Kiirun in Japanese) and Takau (Takao in Japanese, now renamed Kaohsiung in Mandarin Chinese) were originally developed by the Japanese into major commercial ports but by this time were also served as main naval bases; at the opening chapters of the war, many of the amphibious missions against British Malaya and Philippine Islands were launched from these two ports.
Suggested Topics
