@FranceNeedsMorePower France only needs a infantry in Normandy.
Redesign 1941 Setup on v5 1942.2 San Francisco Experiment
-
Wow Argo,
you worked hard and your way better than me into changing map features.I’m pretty happy you found the Always active AAgun.
I hope it works only in water.I saw your VCs, there is a few which differ from the basic 20/30/40 lists.
Would accept to change a few VCs to streamlined as much as possible your map?
Are you able to add a few more to reach 30 VCs?
Or, do you prefer to stay at 24 VCs for some reason?Here is what I’d like:
Poland VCs move to Ploesti (Romania / Bulgaria Romania),
Ottawa (Eastern Canada) move to Reykjavik (Island), (an easier target and nonetheless very important way point in lend-lease convoy)Also, 4-Truk (Caroline Islands), should be a VC/VT (more accurately a Victory Territory) to give some reason to attack.
Rio (Brazil) move to Truk (Caroline Islands),I suggested: 10-Wellington (New Zealand), but I clearly see how important is Panama’s Canal and if there is no NOs on this map a VC is a must.
In addition, a Factory in New Zealand create by itself an incentive to invade.
We have nothing else better to give to Panama than VC.You put 16-Irkutsk (Yakut SSR), it is on the 40 list and not in the 30 lists.
Do you need it more than Archangel? (which was put on the 30 lists)
At least, I would change:
Egypt for Archangel, then?
It is too easy to get by Germany.
Egypt is a stranglehold point which doesn’t give a good idea of Axis progression.However, it may also be possible to switch priority rank from G40 list to 30VTs list between Victoria (30 lister) and Irkutsk (40 lister):
14-Victoria (Western Canada),
15-Chonqing (Szechwan), (G40: China)
16-Irkutsk (Yakut SSR),to…
14-Irkutsk (Yakut SSR)
15-Chonqing (Szechwan), (G40: China)
16-Victoria (Western Canada)So, it makes senses to keep both Cairo and Irkutsk (Yakut).
Here is the list:
@Baron:Here is a revised list based on IL advice on last page.
It is still keeping Archangel,Baku, Rostov-on-Don, Ploiesti and Mosul as VCs.
Rostov is no more VC meaning Baku needs to be NOs.
Kiev (Ukraine SSR) is in G40 40 list instead of Rostov-on-Don
Tunis (Tunisia) and Dakar are now VCs instead of Algiers and Free Town.
Amsterdam (Holland) is out.
Helsinki (Finland) Pro-Axis Neutral is out.
Gibraltar will be considered with NOs.
Azores might be considered if we ever do map changes.G40 40 VCs list, 1942.2 30 VCs & 20 VCs list
G40 only 10 VCs are bolded.
1942.2 30 VCs list is normal font.
1942.2 20 VCs list is italicized.Total VCs: 40/30/20
ETO VCs: 22/16/10
PTO VCs: 18/14/10Axis ETO: 7/6/4
Allies ETO: 15/10/6Axis PTO: 4/6/4
Allies PTO: 14/8/630 VCs / 20 VCs list on 1942.2 make for :
Germany: 6 VCs / 4 VCs
Japan: 6 VCs / 4 VCs
China (US): 1 VC / 0 VC
USA: 4 VCs / 4 VCs
Russia: 4 VCs / 3 VCs
UK: 9 VCs / 5 VCs40 VCs list makes for:
ETO: 22 VCs
Germany: 4 VCs
Italy: 2 VCs
Pro-Axis Neutral: 1 VCPro-Allies Neutral: 1 VC
France: 3 VCs
Russia: 5 VCs
UK: 5 VCs
USA: 1 VCsPTO: 18 VCs
Japan: 4 VCs
UK: 4 VCs
ANZAC: 3 VCs
China: 1 VC
USA: 4 VCs
Russia: 2 VCsG40 and 1942.2 40/30/20 Victory Cities list:
Axis 8 European VCs (5+1 VCs 1942.2) 4 VCs on 20 VCs:
1-Berlin (Germany),
2-Rome (Italy),
3-Paris (France), (G40 France: Allies)
4-Ploiesti/Bucharest (Romania / Bulgaria Romania 1942.2),
5-Oslo (Norway),
6-Warsaw (Poland/Eastern Europe),
7-Tripoli (Libya).
8-Mosul/Baghdad (Iraq) Pro-Axis Neutral,9-Athens (Greece) (Pro-Allies Neutral / 1942.2: Axis),
Allies 13+1 ETO VCs (10 VCs 1942.2) 6 VCs on 20 VCs:
10-Washington (Eastern USA),
11-London (UK),
12-Cape Town (South Africa),
13-Moscow (Russia),
14-Leningrad (Karelia SSR),
15-Stalingrad (Volgograd) (Caucasus 1942.2),
16-Archangel (Archangelsk),
17-Reykjavik (Island),
18-Cairo (Egypt),
19-Dakar (French West Africa),
20-Tunis (Tunisia),
21-Kiev (Ukraine SSR),
22-Ottawa (Ontario).Axis 6 PTO VCs (G40 & 1942.2) 4 VCs on 20 VCs:
1-Tokyo (Japan),
2-Shanghai (Kiangsu),
3-Manila (Philippines), (G40 USA: Allies)
4-Truk (Caroline Islands),
5-Singapore (Malaya), (G40 UK: Allies)
6-Manchuria (Harbin),7-Rabaul (New Britain) (G40 New Britain ANZAC: Allies / 1942.2 New Guinea: Axis).
Allies 11+1 PTO VCs (8 VCs 1942.2) 6 VCs on 20 VCs:
8-Calcutta (India),
9-Sydney (Eastern Australia), (G40 ANZAC)
10-Wellington (New Zealand), (G40 ANZAC)
11-Anchorage (Alaska),
12-Honolulu (Hawaii),
13-San Francisco (Western USA),
14-Victoria (Western Canada),
15-Chonqing (Szechwan), (G40: China)
16-Irkutsk (Yakut SSR),
17-Hong Kong (Kwangtung),
18-Vladivostok (Amur).Victory Conditions to be determined…
You win if your team has at least x+ VCs in either theater, or at least y+ VCs globally for two consecutive. (Making R1 win impossible.)
Check VCs number on Warchest phase at the end of a game round if VCs condition is obtained.
-
Do you believe you can change Infantry for Aircraft in the first Soviet defensive line?
I would change 1 TcB in Poland into a Fighter. That way, both can work in combined arms against the lonely Fighter in Western Russia.
Also, don’t forget that Tactical bombers can also bomb IC in SFExperiment v5.
One less bomber might help UK’s IC not being maxed out too early.
And Germany needs Fighters to get the opportunity to freeze them in Germany or Western Europe to defend against bombers.Is there some historical reason you put 1 Fighter in New Zealand?
I liked you add 1 Infantry in Eastern Canada, this single Tank and half empty TP always bugged med.
Things starts slowly for Allies, let them have a little fun somewhere.On my map, Northwestern Europe and France are quite depleted, once all Tanks rushed in the East toward Baltic States. It opens a gap in Western German’s defense. UK might try to take NWE. It can be around 50% success if there is only 1 or 2 Infs and 1 AAA. In my mind it makes for Dieppe raid, even if it is a bit early (but you can wait next UK’s turn to try):
The Dieppe Raid, also known as the Battle of Dieppe, Operation Rutter during planning stages, and by its final official code-name Operation Jubilee, was an Allied attack on the German-occupied port of Dieppe during the Second World War. The raid took place on the northern coast of France on 19 August 1942. The assault began at 5:00 a.m., and by 10:50 a.m. the Allied commanders were forced to call a retreat. Over 6,000 infantrymen, predominantly Canadian, were supported by The Calgary Regiment of the 1st Canadian Tank Brigade and a strong force of Royal Navy and smaller Royal Air Force landing contingents. It involved 5,000 Canadians, 1,000 British troops, and 50 United States Army Rangers.
Objectives included seizing and holding a major port for a short period, both to prove that it was possible and to gather intelligence. Upon retreat, the Allies also wanted to destroy coastal defences, port structures and all strategic buildings. The raid had the added objectives of boosting morale and demonstrating the firm commitment of the United Kingdom to open a western front in Europe.
Virtually none of these objectives were met. Allied fire support was grossly inadequate and the raiding force was largely trapped on the beach by obstacles and German fire. Less than 10 hours after the first landings, the last Allied troops had all been either killed, evacuated, or left behind to be captured by the Germans. Instead of a demonstration of resolve, the bloody fiasco showed the world that the Allies could not hope to invade France for a long time. Some intelligence successes were achieved, including electronic intelligence.
Of the 6,086 men who made it ashore, 3,367 (almost 60%) were either killed, wounded or captured.[4] The Royal Air Force failed to lure the Luftwaffe into open battle, and lost 106 aircraft (at least 32 to flak or accidents), compared to 48 lost by the Luftwaffe.[5] The Royal Navy lost 33 landing craft and one destroyer. The events at Dieppe influenced preparations for the North African (Operation Torch) and Normandy landings (Operation Overlord).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid
So, it is voluntarily that France and NWE are pretty barren.
-
Changing TT values is a Pandora’s box. It makes tabletop game application a bigger challenge.
I’m not sure Redesign should go that far, at least in the M3 proof of concept step.
I’m more than happy you can do it however.
It opens a lot more possibilities.One feature which scratches me is that on this map and 1941 year, there is absolutely no reason for Japan to invade Solomon Islands and fight over them.
Placing an IC gives no unit, adding a UK’s or US’ plane is anachronistic.
Adding a VT there doesn’t make a lot of sense, Rabaul in New Britain is part of New Guinea on 1942.2 OOB map but doesn’t clearly appear on Triple A.
Maybe this can be something similar to Panama’s canal, making it a VT.
That way, it might be an incentive to fight over there.Also, adding one IPC on it might also help.
If we pretend Rabaul is in this TT and New Britain is pictured adequately on Triple A in Solomon SZ then there will be two good reasons to fight for it. 1 IPC+1VT point.
On 30/40 list, we may change another VT for that one.Then, historically speaking, it would be make sense for US to open up hostilities over these islands.
Keeping in mind that VT status is pretty like Iceland and Panama’s Canal: all about sea ways and control of Allies convoys traffic lane.
-
Hey Baron,
Interesting comments; I’ll try to take them one at a time. I’ve attached a screenshot and saved game of my recent solo playtest – it’s the same setup as before (Alpha 0.2), but with two full rounds played out as best I could.
Victory Cities
I chose 24 victory cities because 20 doesn’t really give you enough cities to cover the globe on the 1942.2 map, and 30 seems excessive to me – you wind up with too many adjacent pairs of victory cities, which bothers me. It’s also a nice, round, easily divisible number. You know you’re winning if you have more than 50% = 12 VCs; you know you are crushing your opponent if you have more than 75% = 18 VCs. It fits neatly. That said, I’m not wedded to 24 VCs. It could be 23 or 25 or 26. I am also happy to make you a copy of the .xml file with whatever VCs you like – just send me your favorite list, and I’ll edit it for you. I am also happy to provide a copy of the .xml file with the exact list of 30 VCs chosen by the G40 redesign committee if I see that there is actually an overlapping community of playtesters who actually want the VCs to be standardized between maps. If it’s just you, me, and Black_Elk working on 1942.2, then I don’t feel much pressure to “standardize” the VCs.All of that said, I am happy to switch from Warsaw to Ploesti – I was on the fence on that one anyway. I can also see some merit in switching from Ottawa to Rekyavik…Reykyavik is easier to get to for the Germans, and a North Pacific campaign by the Japanese will already pick up the VC in Alaska, so it’s probably safe to make that switch.
I am not going to get rid of Cairo or Rio as victory cities. Because the Dardanelles are open, and because Germany needs all the infantry it can get in Ukraine / Caucasus, and because Britain’s forces are spread out more evenly over Africa, it’s not obvious that Germany can or will take and hold Egypt, so Egypt becomes an interesting territory to count as a victory city. If Germany makes a successful attack on Egypt and then holds Egypt as a stalemate line, that’s worth 1 VC in Africa. If Germany makes a crushing attack on Egypt, follows it up with reinforcements, and penetrates all the way to South Africa, that’s worth 2 VC in Africa. If Germany ignores Egypt in favor of sending everything to Stalingrad, that’s worth 0 VC in Africa.
Similar idea in Rio – the USA should be able to take Brazil without much trouble, but if Britian ignores the Vichy factory in French West Africa, then Germany can eventually snap it up. Same thing if Japan penetrates to New Zealand – from New Zealand, Japan is one sea move away from Argentina, and Argentina is one land move away from Brazil. This means that if Britain abandons the ANZAC region, Japan will be able to continue pressing east from Sydney to Wellington to Panama and/or Brazil, and keep picking up victory cities along the way. Japan’s not likely to actually take Brazil in more than 2% of games, but the fact that they could take it will stop Britain from ahistorically packing up the entire ANZAC armed forces and shipping them to west Africa.
Dieppe Raid / Infantry Depletion
So, I just tested this map for 2 full rounds, and Britain was able to pull off a successful raid on Dieppe, taking NW Europe with 1 surviving tank on the very first turn after attacking with 1 inf, 1 tnk, 2 ftr, 1 tacB, and 1 BB against Germany’s 3 inf, 1 AAA. If you send the Luftwaffe east on G1, you can’t wreck the entire British Atlantic fleet, which means at least one M3 transport is coming for you, and you don’t have enough infantry to take all 3 Barbarossa territories (Baltic, Belorussia, Ukraine) and also guard both France and NW Europe and also leave troops in Italy / Southern Europe so you can make a G2 amphibious attack on Kiev or Cairo.
I made some wild guesses in setting up the Eastern Front, so if you see a way for Germany to accomplish all its objectives in Barbarossa while still guarding the whole Atlantic Wall so firmly that Britain cannot poke a hole in it, please let me know, and I will adjust the starting forces! I enjoy the idea of a Dieppe raid, and my goal is to continue to make a UK1 or UK2 Dieppe Raid plausible (although not necessarily optimal).
Airplane Mix for Germany
I gave Germany 5 starting tactical bombers with only 4 starting fighters on purpose, because Hitler was obsessed with fighter-bombers, and he probably built too many fighter-bombers at the expense of having enough traditional fighters to guarantee air superiority. The 1941-era Luftwaffe was also famous for its Stuka dive-bombers, which provided close tactical air support, much like a tactical bomber. As the new commander starting in 1941, you’re free to reverse that policy and start building fighters if you want, but I wanted to have a historical start.
I also like the idea that Germany’s air force is not optimally deployed for the Barbarossa strike, i.e., if you are willing to wait one turn for your airblitz, you can achieve better fighter / tacB synergy. Germany still has some pretty good synergy for a G1 attack, but it’s not perfect, and I think that fairly reflects Germany’s aggressive timetable for planning and launching Barbarossa only a couple months after finishing up in Norway, Greece and Yugoslavia.
If Germany wants to use its tactical bombers to try to max out the strategic damage on London, that sounds like a totally historically appropriate thing to do in 1941. At worst, Britain takes 16 damage – it can afford to pay that price and still keep fighting, especially if the British Home Fleet survives. Same thing if Germany wants to use the Luftwaffe to max out damage on Russian factories – it’s not that great of a strategy, but it’s historically plausible. Note that strategic bombers cannot reach Moscow from Berlin on G1 because there is nowhere for them to land, so the only way to hit Moscow is to use the tactical bombers, which really are needed against the Russian air force and/or British fleet and/or Russian tank corps. The Vologda factory is also totally out of reach of all German bombers on G1 – even if Germany does max out Russian factory damage in Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, Russia can spend $8 to fully repair Stalingrad and then spend its remaining $24 on 4 inf, 2 tnk, which is a perfectly sensible purchase.
Solomon / Caroline Islands Campaign
You’re right that in my 1941 setup, there is very little reason for America to contest either the Caroline Islands or the Solomon Islands. I’m mostly OK with that! Japan’s invasion of the Solomon Islands (and New Guinea) was part of a gambit that was intended to cut the supply lines running between Australia and the United States, making it easier for Japan to defend the core of its empire. Frankly, I think that was a dumb strategy on Japan’s part, since they had already decided that they didn’t have enough troops or transports available to invade even part of Australia. If you’re not going to invade or besiege Australia, then what do you care whether they can trade with the United States? Japan was on the clock, racing to find some way to win the war before the United States’ superior industrial capacity could be fully mobilized, and I think the Solomons / Guadalcanal campaign revealed the fact that Japan simply did not have any good ideas for how to do that. Historically, US & ANZAC forces eked out an expensive but decisive victory in the Solomons region, forcing Japan to abandon the area. But even if Japan had won, then what? How would a secure Japanese base in the Solomons have prevented the USA from launching more fully-equipped carriers each year than Japan had in its entire fleet? If I had been commanding Japan’s forces, I would have preferred an invasion of India (to knock Britain out of the war), or Hawaii (to destroy the Allied oil reserves), or Alaska (to gain control of oil fields), or even New Zealand (as a forward staging base with a small enough population to conquer but a large enough economy to be largely self-supporting).
Similarly, I think the US strategy of island hopping through half the islands in the central Pacific was pretty boneheaded, too. With respect for the brave Marines who died on those islands, I just don’t think it was necessary to capture dozens of tiny lumps of rock in the middle of the largest ocean in the world. Capturing one base in the central Pacific to use as a depot for spare parts and as a secure rendezvous point was a good idea. Capturing a second base for redundancy and flexibility was reasonable. But why did America need 30 island bases in the central Pacific? Both sides’ carrier fleets can easily sail around all of those tiny islands if they choose to do so. You don’t get any advantage out of capturing a lump of rock that’s worth the blood and treasure you spend on ferreting out all of that island’s infantry defenders. If I had been commanding the American forces, I would have sailed clockwise to New Zealand, then to southwest Australia, and then sailed north to link up with British Indian forces. It’s a long route, but you can refuel in New Zealand and again in Australia; they have stockpiles of oil and food and spare parts. Alternatively, I would have sailed counter-clockwise to Alaska, along the Aleutian islands that America already controlled, and then sailed southwest to take on supplies in Vladivostok before invading Korea and Manchuria, where Japan was manufacturing supplies that were absolutely vital to its war effort.
All that said, if you want to put a victory city in Truk to symbolize the importance of the naval bases there, that’s fine. Not everyone sees the Pacific campaign the way I do.
New Zealand fighter
No special historical reason. I wanted New Zealand’s armed forces to consist of something more than just 1 infantry, but the New Zealand sea zone isn’t an interesting place for naval units, and the New Zealand land zone is a nearly useless place for Allied land units. Putting a single fighter in New Zealand gives ANZAC a rudimentary air force that can support an Australian expeditionary force, or pick off undefended Japanese transports, or just guard Sydney. Putting the fighter in New Zealand rather than Sydney makes it slightly harder to get the fighter into action, thematically representing the need for ANZAC to mobilize before they’re fully effective.
Changing Territory Values
I actually agree with you that it’s important to not change territory values at this stage of development, so that the game is at least theoretically easy to playtest in face-to-face games. Note that I have only given values to some formerly impassible countries – I have not changed the value of any OOB territory, not even if the OOB value was zero.
Eventually, I am happy to tinker with all of the territory values as needed, and maybe even split a couple of territories in half, but first I would like to do a proof of concept for the M3 cruisers, 1941 setup, and other innovations.
Changing Soviet Infantry into Even More Airplanes
Tactically, yes, it’s possible to carry on swapping out infantry for fighters without wrecking the Barbarossa campaign. In practice, I feel no great urge to give Russia more than 4 starting airplanes (as compared to ZERO airplanes in AA50 1941!). Even if Russia had a large air force in 1941, they didn’t have more fighter squadrons than they had infantry divisions. I don’t want to stack, e.g., the Baltic States with 1 inf, 1 tnk, 2 ftr because that suggests that they had more pilots than riflemen, which is incorrect. I also don’t really care for the strategic effect, which is that Germany becomes forced to launch Barbarossa whether they want to or not.
As I have the map set up currently, Germany can choose whether to attack each of the Baltic States, Belorussia, Ukraine, Archangel, and West Russia. All of the attacks are profitable for Germany, but no one attack is mandatory. If Germany wants to skip one, or two, or maybe even three of those five attacks in order to free up more resources for an attack on Egypt, the Caucasus, or London (or in order to turtle, or in order to support a navy, or in order to go all out building strategic bombers) then Germany is free to do so. The more we replace infantry with planes, though, the more it costs Germany to divert forces away from the mainstream Barbarossa and toward alternative goals.
-
I gave Germany 5 starting tactical bombers with only 4 starting fighters on purpose, because Hitler was obsessed with fighter-bombers, and he probably built too many fighter-bombers at the expense of having enough traditional fighters to guarantee air superiority. The 1941-era Luftwaffe was also famous for its Stuka dive-bombers, which provided close tactical air support, much like a tactical bomber. As the new commander starting in 1941, you’re free to reverse that policy and start building fighters if you want, but I wanted to have a historical start.
Too bad you solved Eastern Canada lack of Infantry issue on one hand and create a similar scratches on my back on the other… :-D
I really want to see paired Fg-TcB when it counts in direct planes vs planes.
Adding more TcBs than Fgs in Germany and elsewhere in Europe doesn’t bother me.
Don’t forget TcB can be useful on front line to add more punch to Tank.You forced me into reading more deeply about this part of Barbarossa Air war.
I found the numbers:The strength of the Luftwaffe amounted to 4,389 aircraft, of which 2,598 were combat types and 1,939 were operational. The inventory amounted to 929 bombers, 793 fighters, 376 dive-bombers, 70 destroyers (Messerschmitt Bf 110s), 102 reconnaissance, and 60 ground attack aircraft, plus 200 fighters in reserve and 60 miscellaneous types.[2] Around 68 per cent of the German air strength was operational.
The number of aircraft that would face the Axis in the five (Leningrad, Baltic, Western, Kiev, and Odessa) border districts, out of 13 military districts in the west of the country, was 5,440 (1,688 bombers, 2,736 fighters, 336 close support aircraft, 252 reconnaissance, and 430 army-controlled) aircraft. Around 4,700 were considered to be combat aircraft, but only 2,850 were thought to be modern. Of this total, 1,360 bombers and reconnaissance aircraft and 1,490 fighters were combat-ready. Luftwaffe intelligence suggested that a ground support force of 150,000 ground- and aircrew and 15,000 pilots were available.[53] The actual strength of the VVS in the western Soviet Union was 13,000 to 14,000 aircraft, as opposed to the 2,800 aircraft considered operational by the Luftwaffe.[1]
VVS: Voyenno-Vozdushnyye Sily Raboche-Krestyanskaya Krasnaya Armiya (Military Aviation of the Workers and Peasants Red Army, or VVS-RKKA, often abbreviated to VVS)
I would say Hitler’s general views on TcB Stukas is not relevant on Fgs vs Bombers ratios when you read the historical facts about Luftwaffe expertise in Barbarossa.However, it seems there should be no StBombers (one at most to figure for bombing on London I suppose), only TcBs:
Strategic capability
Jeschonnek’s view of air warfare was also flawed. He believed in the quick war. To this end he advocated throwing in all personnel, even training instructors into short but intensive campaigns. He did not believe in retaining reserves of pilots or material. He also, like Ernst Udet, head of the Technical Department, favoured dive bombers. He insisted all aircraft should have the capability, which retarded the development of capable bombers like the Heinkel He 177, by complicating the design, thus delaying development and production.[46] The lack of a heavy bomber denied the Luftwaffe the chance to hit Soviet factories in the far reaches of the Urals and at least disrupt enemy production.[4]And from game play, I really like to have some kind of planes vs planes in both Archangel (I would get rid of single Infantry there) and Western Russia. Placing many Soviet Fgs and TcBs gives the full impact of how, at start Germany was outnumbered in aircrafts but after initial assault, a tactical victory was achieved.
However, your point about giving some flexibility about not totally scripting the opening is relevant. Giving the choice between Royal Navy or Fg in Archangel is one of them.
Other objectives might be Russian Navy in Black Sea: 1 Cruiser, 1 Sub and 1 TP?
Attrition on Caucasus is also possible if there is less plane in Germany and more on frontline (Poland 1 Fg + 1 TcB Bulgaria Romania 1 Fg + 1 TcB) + 1 TcB in any.The idea about not placing Soviet Infantry on front is about showing the casualty on war engines. It better depicts the vast quantities of Soviet materials lost. Infantry lost will come in G2-R2, G3-R3 and so forth anyway.
It seems that Soviet were very unprepared and, not only a lot of planes were destroyed in airfield, the lack of tactical skills and understanding too. It takes time before Soviet Air commands give the order to send bombers with escorting Fighters. Many soviet bomber pilots were sacrificed and turkey shot by German’s Fighter pilots:
The Luftwaffe was highly effective at carrying out close support operations,[38] in direct or indirect support of the army and at winning and maintaining air superiority. German doctrine, and experiences in the Spanish Civil War, then Europe, had developed suitable aircraft for the role, such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109, Heinkel He 111, Dornier Do 17, Junkers Ju 88 and Junkers Ju 87. Their aircrews were still highly trained, and despite attrition, still had a cadre of experienced personnel. The air-to-ground support was the best in the World at the time. Forward air controllers (Flivos) were attached to every mechanised and panzer division, to allow for accurate air support, free from friendly-fire incidents and in real time.[39][40]
The German air operations staff, at all levels, also practiced the concept of Auftragstaktik (or mission command) doctrine. It encouraged the improvisation of tactics within the framework of set operational goals and advocated by-passing some levels of command under some circumstances. The air units were told what to achieve by high echelons, but not how to do it. This form of command was encouraged at the lowest levels to maintain the initiative and operational tempo.[41] The form of warfare was an ad hoc style, but it allowed field commanders to dis-assemble and re-assemble command structures at Air Corps level, and commit them to a crisis, or urgent operations within a short period of time. This gave the Luftwaffe an unmatched degree of tactical and operational flexibility.[42]
Tactics and technical standards
In the tactical arena the Germans held significant leads against the Soviets. While the Soviets were not as primitive in aircraft design quality as believed, it was in tactical deployment, combat tactics, and training, along with accumulated experience that the Germans held qualitative superiority. In particular, the German Finger-four tactic was better and more flexible than the Vic formation adopted by the Soviets. Moreover, all German fighters possessed radios, so they could communicate with each other. Soviet aircraft lacked this, and pilots had to communicate with hand signals.[50] Despite repeated warnings in the Winter War and Soviet-Japanese Border Wars, little to no investment was made in signals or air-to-air communications. During the later conflict, radios were not used and were thus removed. This was mostly because Soviet radios were too heavy and effected combat performance, while the Germans developed light radios.[51]On Soviet combat capability
The view of Soviet fighter aircraft, namely the I-16, was positive. But the rest of the VVS’ aircraft were deemed obsolete. However, the view formed of Soviet flying crews and operational personnel was not good. In the German view they lacked General Staff training and operational procedure was cumbersome, though they managed to offset some weaknesses by skilful improvisation. Operations were deemed to be lacking in flexibility in attack and defence and they suffered heavy losses for it. Aircrews were considered brave and eager defending their own territory, but showed a lack of fighting spirit over enemy territory. Outstanding pilots were the exception, rather than the norm. Training of Soviet pilots in formation flying was poor, as it was in bombers. Anti-aircraft units showed increased progress but the Luftwaffe saw serious shortcomings in air-to-air and air-land communication.While numerically the strongest air force in the world, the VVS was an imbalanced force in comparison to the British, Americans and Germans at the time of Barbarossa. It relied on too few established designers and an over-centralised system which produced aircraft that fell behind the standards of most powers. The VVS was also profoundly influenced by Giulio Douhet, and the theory of air power that was focused on the offensive, and bombing the enemy heartland. It was overloaded with inadequately designed bombers, which were expected to survive in combat. In 1938 production of light and strike aircraft as well as fighters was to be cut in two to allow for more bomber aircraft to be produced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_and_Soviet_air_operations_during_Operation_Barbarossa
And this last point just showed that in fact Red Army was so much attack oriented that their own aircrafts ratio was off-balanced in bombers!
Here is my playtest. You should look at G1 and J1 mostly. It goes until G3.
I stubbornly attack Russia, they beat my airforce.
Japan aircraft carriers positions allows an almost complete US Navy obliteration.
Only USS Enterprise CV-6 survived the initial slaughter.
I’m not sure it was intended from your part…
I left unattended China however.There is also a snapshot of what kind of German and Soviet border I’m thinking of…
I didn’t change German’s ground units, only aircrafts.
Russian border is more a mixed of units, I even left Baltic States with one Infantry.
This represents the Soviet invasion forces needed to puppet these states.The idea is that you can replace 1 Tank for 1 TcB, it is the same Defense value, but gives a very different TUV and at glance be more impressive.
I scaled the number of planes according to aircrafts casualty ratios in Black_Elk doc. from 1 in Baltic to 2 in Belorussia, to 3 planes in Ukraine. -
~~Did you forgot to reduce US money to 35 IPCs on set-up?
Mexico and Brazil worth 5 IPCs.Unless you prefer to keep it as OOB (41 IPCs).
That way, it is possible to purchase almost like regular usual and see what can happen if there things are similar to OOB map.~~Letting money islands Neutral gives less urgency for IJN to work fast to control them.
IMO, it is one occasion which allows a kind of collaboration-pressure between Germany’s player and Japan’s player (one asking the other to cut this UK’s resources).I still miss the additional IC in Western Australia. (If Eastern worth 2 or 3 IPCs, things would be different.) But I don’t want to modify these values. It allows Australia to built 1 land and 1 sea.
If ever UK built an IC, it would be in South Africa anyway.
But, with lower starting cash and UK1 income (which I’m not fond of because I’m kind of keeping closer to tabletop map, as I said above) it is harder to fill foreign ICs with 6 units already on map (India, Australia and New Zealand).SZ 24 TP and DD give hope that Madagascar can become UK…
Neutrals are a way to remember the political background, it is a good point however.I prefer your map for 1941 because turn order allows to better split IJN amongts PTO SZs.
It gives more possibilities for different opening strategies.In both play-tests I destroyed both Hawaiian and West Coast fleet.
If we want more historical opening pattern, I would be more inclined to shift infantry to more juicy TcB and Fg in Wake and Midway (and according TPs to invade both island or even try Alaska instead) and adjusting West Coast fleet in a way to get around a 50% survival on a US counter-attack with USS Enterprise and all around Fg and TcB.Not building a second IC in China is OK to me, 1 Infantry in Sinkiang and boosted Szechwan fit the bill.
Russia can still move Infantry into Sinkiang anyway, right?
Is it possible for USA to built any kind of unit in Szechwan? -
I believe there is 1 Infantry which should becomes Tank in Western Europe or France.
That way, it might be easier to deplete the coast and allows for a doable Dieppe raid.
Something along 40% or lower success at most. -
Here is another gamesaved until J3 to go, it is based on the modified Russian air setup, everything else is similar. I tried a KGF. But I also made a Dieppe Raid, not a good idea.
I can say now that Fighter, according to Barney too, should not have Anti-Sub A1/D1, only Tactical Bomber.
Fighter already gets D4. Carrier becomes too dangerous for Sub, Subs is preemptively toasted too often.
So, it is a good thing that Barney did make the change on G40 option packages.Fighter should probably rise to A2/D2 in escort and intercept.
But TcB remains A1 in SBR and get a full AntiSub A1/D1.Maybe Caucasus may need 1 additional Infantry on set-up, that way amphibious landing will be almost a no show on G1. IDK.
With so little money available, I don’t like sideshows in SouthAMerica.
Maybe US can start with Brazil and Mexico on its side, or just Brazil?
What is the chronological for Mexico and Brazil to follow USA?
Letting 1 Panama’s infantry on diplomatic mission for Neutral in South America along with 1 Tank can be enough.I would give 1 more artillery in West US and East US, to allow an early amphibious assault anywhere.
It would be cool to test by giving 1 IPC per VTs controlled at the end of a completed game round.
This can be given to any Power.
Of course, these bonus IPCs needs to be edited. -
GHG suggestion makes me think about this for solving Japan invading Soviet TTs.
@Baron:Starting at the Himalayas, the line moves north dividing China from Russia, along the west side of Mongolia, the eastern borders of Timguska and Urals. It gets a little snakey up north but I needed to follow some border lines so I chose those 2. If you look at a satellite map you can see that there is no difference between these mountains and the Himalayas. It looks as though this is an extension of that range that branched out perpendicular to the Himalayas. In real terms this is what separated Europe from Asia in the development of cultures for thousands of years. The Silk Road is really just a path that traders used to go between the 2 continents to exchange goods. It winded through these mountains in 2 places, Mongolia and China.
On the Asian side of the mountains there is 8 Russian territories worth 8 IPC’s. If Japan wants to expend the resources they can conquer those territories. It would still have been an almost impossible task for them to do this much but I wanted to make it somewhat worth their while to even bother attacking Russia. Any IPC they gain is one lost for the Russians. It truly would have been impossible for them to move beyond these mountains. The Trans-Siberian Railway would have been simple enough to destroy for the Russians behind them as they were retreating. That’s why I allow them to move their troops from Asia to Europe but not Europe to Asia. The Mongolian Rule would still be in effect. Really though, that mountain range should have been drawn on the map to begin with and made impassable like the Himalayas. It makes the game more realistic when you don’t have Japanese sneaking up on Moscow or Russians piling into China like all they had to do was hold hands and skip across the border.
Side note; Tankograd was built up against the western side of this mountain range. It was there because of the proximity to the rocks that were converted into metal and because it was safe due to the fact that nobody could attack them from the east through those impassable mountains. It was as far as you could get from the front lines with Germany.
Respecting the physical borders of the planet seems more logical than creating political borders that can be debated. The ability to drive a mechanized army through those mountains is not debatable.
Does Timguska able to be captured by Japan if coming from China instead of Russia?
It means up to 9 TTs on G40 Asian Map.Would it be simpler to use directly the Pacific OOB left map which already physically separate there?
So, if Japan want to go to Russia, it needs to pass through India and Persia, right?
And once Japan reached this Ourals border, does it means Russia can no longer invade it from the Western Side of Ourals?
(Assuming Trans-Siberian Railways are too easily destroyed from either side.)That way, it can make sense to built a Rising Sun Empire into Asia.
Cutting all possible attacks from western side of Pacific Map, except from India can be very interesting for Japan. It can now just concentrate against USA, UK and ANZAC.
Chineses and Russians TTs remains both ways for Soviet units until Japan close the supply lines.
End of the story.
Moscow is not endangered by Japanese armies but neither Japanese interest in this part of the Asian land.You wrote this:
This version of the San Francisco Experiment also includes the Argo Map Mods, which treat South America, Persia, Saudi Arabia, the West Indies, and Borneo as “soft neutrals” that can be occupied by any player.
In addition, there are two new canals: the Kiel Canal, which requires players to own both Norway and NW Europe in order to move between Sea Zones 5 and 6, and the Straits of Gibraltar, which requires players to own Gibraltar in order to move between Sea Zones 13 and 14.
The Dardanelles Straits (near Turkey) are open to all players, because Turkey cannot be owned.
Finally, the connection between Russia and Western China has been severely restricted: units may only pass between Sinkiang and Evenki. Kazakh and Novosibirsk are no longer considered adjacent to any Chinese territories. The game will automatically enforce all of these restrictions.
Assuming the connection between Russia and Western China has been severely restricted: Allied/Soviet units may only pass between Sinkiang and Evenki.
Kazakh and Novosibirsk are no longer considered adjacent to any Chinese territories.What about Japan being able to close Soviet land movement toward Sinkiang and all Soviet TTs east of Ourals if Japan control Evenki?
Once captured, Japan can not move toward Vologda, Novosibirsk or Archangel or any Western Soviet TTs.
To me, it seems to fit this bill:
“Japan’s objective is The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (Asia for the Asians).”That would mean the only access to Moscow and Western russian soil is through Persia.
I checked on Canal restrictions. You did a good job. Everything works as you said.
So, Submarines are also restricted.
I like this simple rules for all naval units.It makes Gibraltar very important without adding IPC or VTs on it.
Operation Torch can protect its navy that way. -
Factory in French Western Africa seems an interesting wink to subtly make a reference to Free French units. Once the only Vichy Infantry is destroyed. UK can built 1 unit there and use them to fight in Africa.
I find interesting that only 1 NWE Fighter can reinforced this lonely Infantry, if Germany decided so.
It seems to tip the balance of this TT to become Allies unless Germany put a real effort to keep it.
I still find that there is maybe 1 UK Infantry in excess in Africa.
May be Italian East Africa Infantry could be drop.
Why do you need an AAA?
Change it into an Artillery if you drop the Infantry in IEA.
It would make a pretty good reinforcement from South African Dominions, without adding another IC in Africa.
IDK if you are totally against the idea of adding 1 German Sub in Italian SZ and changing UK DD into a Cruiser.
Here is the story of the Raid on Alexandria in december third 1941 made by Regia Marina.
Quite a daring action for this special forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Alexandria_(1941)
Here is the casualty:
2 battleships disabled, (HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Valiant)
1 destroyer damaged,
1 tanker damaged,
8 killedThis represented a dramatic change of fortunes against the Allies from the strategic point of view during the next six months. The Italian fleet had temporarily wrested naval supremacy in the east-central Mediterranean from the Royal Navy.
The Italian submarine fleet of World War II was one of the largest in the world at that time, second only to that of the Soviet Union. It saw action during the Second World War, serving mainly in the Mediterranean. At the outset of World War II the Italian navy had 107 submarines: During the conflict 88 submarines, some two-thirds of its total strength, were lost.
At that time, there was a small fleet of U-boat in Med Sea, too.
The 23rd U-boat Flotilla was established in September 1941 to intercept coastal shipping sustaining Allied forces through the siege of Tobruk.[9] U-boats patrolled the eastern Mediterranean from the 23rd flotilla base on Salamis Island in Greece. On 7 December control of the 23rd Flotilla was transferred from Kernevel to the German High Command in Italy headed by Albert Kesselring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_U-boat_Campaign_(World_War_II)
Using the Surprise attack of Submarine on Cruiser to figure for this raid seems an interesting way to emphasized this event.
-
Writing from a phone on the subway, so I cannot hit all of your points yet, but here are a couple.
There are obviously ways to rearrange the sub Saharan Africa forces if desired. If you want an artillery instead of an aa gun somewhere, or one less infantry, that’s fine. The important point is to start with at least 50% of British African assets south of Egypt.
You could start French West Africa with as much as 1 inf, 1 aa gun, 1 factory if desired. I agree that French West Africa is impossible for Germany to defend against a concerted British assault, but that is intentional: historically, the 1 inf + 1 ftr in French Equatorial Africa (Gold Coast) went east to help defend Egypt rather than west for an immediate attack on Dakar, and the Free French still captured Dakar in the winter of 1942. If Britain had been willing to both strip reinforcements intended for Egypt and bring in Canadian marines in order to assault Dakar in 1941, Dakar could not possibly have held.
I’m not sure I understand your proposal re: further limiting movement in Siberia. Are you looking for a rule that says that Japan can never invade from the west past a certain point? A rule saying that Russia can no longer reinforce China, even with existing Far East troops, if it loses Evenki? I do not see how such rules would add to the game. Maybe you can explain it to me.
I denied the USA starting artillery because it took 10 months between Pearl Harbor and Operation Torch, even though America historically went “Europe First.” The idea is that American Army divisions were inadequately trained and organized in 1941 for an effective amphibious landing. Is that not accurate? I think a US2 attack on Morocco, France, Holland, etc. Is still totally doable on my setup, and for US 1 the US can often attack in China at a profit, and may have a Philippine sub left to attack with and some cleanup work to do in the east Pacific. I hope all that is not too boring for the U.S. player!
Thanks for playtesting, and looking forward to reviewing your games!
-
I’m not sure I understand your proposal re: further limiting movement in Siberia. Are you looking for a rule that says that Japan can never invade from the west past a certain point? A rule saying that Russia can no longer reinforce China, even with existing Far East troops, if it loses Evenki? I do not see how such rules would add to the game. Maybe you can explain it to me.
Not exactly, if all Soviet TTs East of Ourals i.e. Evenki to Soviet Far East (all Soviet TTs on G40 Pacific map) are Japanese controlled TTs, or there is no more Russian units East of Ourals and Evenki is controlled by Japan, then Soviet can longer send troops there.
The Trans-Siberian Railways has been cut off by Japan.
It makes for a realistic military and geo-political achievement against Bolshevism in itself.So, for Japan, the Asian conquest objective is to control all chinese and all Soviet TTs up including Evenki. That way, they have no more military worries for their back in Asia. (Asia for Asian theme)
They can focus on India, Anzac and USA.
GHG clearly made me realized how narrow were communication links between Western and Eastern side of Ourals mounts.
Volodga will be the Western Side of Ourals and the IC is for Tankograd.
As long as there is Soviet units in the east (whether in China or elsewhere in Soviet TTs) it will be possible to reopened the railways if regain control of Evenki.Usually, it is a non-issue. Japan is clearing its way along the north or the chinese access to Evenki (via Sinkiang).
I like that Sinkiang can be reinforced by Soviet unit supporting Mao communist army (as you first made it).
-
I denied the USA starting artillery because it took 10 months between Pearl Harbor and Operation Torch, even though America historically went “Europe First.” The idea is that American Army divisions were inadequately trained and organized in 1941 for an effective amphibious landing. Is that not accurate? I think a US2 attack on Morocco, France, Holland, etc. Is still totally doable on my setup, and for US 1 the US can often attack in China at a profit, and may have a Philippine sub left to attack with and some cleanup work to do in the east Pacific. I hope all that is not too boring for the U.S. player!
What about placing a Tank in Eastern USA instead?
And a third Infantry in Western USA (needed to convert Mexico while the Tank move to East Mexico through Central USA).I saw that Tank in Western USA to run into Mexico and blitz eventually to reach Colombia USA2 and make a diplomatic move to get some Neutral South American TTs in USA3 while Panama’s Infantry convert Brazil on USA2.
Clearly, using only 1 Infantry and 1 Tank to invade somewhere, will be sub-optimal.
Unless US decides to directly land into Brazil to get 3 IPCs faster, then US can land somewhere in US2. It is funnier to allow impatient player to make such correct move, but going with an half-empty TP (M3 in addition) is delaying everything. As player, you better wait for the next round to have a fully loaded Carrier.On Western USA, the Tank is already strange, and you don’t need it since you cannot go further south than East Mexico.
Do you know if there was the same number of Strategic bomber (B-17) in Western and Eastern US?
It is only a vestigial remnants of AA50 set-up (which needed A4 bombers).
For pure depiction, it seems OK to have B-17 in both Western and Eastern USA.
Anyway, both can get into UK on USA1.
I would place 2 u-boats in SZ8 not SZ9 to start. It prevents these two to only attack UK’s ships and not US East Coast units. Hitler was quite directive on that one: do not provoke or attack US ships.
Germany waited Japan Pearl Harbor raid before DOW on USA. -
There are obviously ways to rearrange the sub Saharan Africa forces if desired. If you want an artillery instead of an aa gun somewhere, or one less infantry, that’s fine. The important point is to start with at least 50% of British African assets south of Egypt.
I agree wholly to this 50%, it seems you know your business on African Armies.
You could start French West Africa with as much as 1 inf, 1 aa gun, 1 factory if desired.
No necessary. If there is nothing on FWA on set-up, I’m ok.
I like that there is no unit. Germany can get 1 Inf and 1 Fg, or even 1 Tank and 1 Fg (or 2Fgs!) if they really want to keep it.
But it means 1 less Fg in NWE which do not attack UK’s fleet somewhere, except for SZ13 Carrier.To make Vichy a real partner, Germany have to give a “few guarantees”.
Also, would you increase Tanks in set-up to 11 (as in OOB 1942.2)?
To make a real cut into Russia, Germany cannot divert any resource in water or Africa, IMO.
I build up only Infantry and 1 or 2 Artillery to spent all money, each G turn.IDK if it can be possible to make German’s purchase more interesting to allow for other strategy.
A late Sea-Lion, invading Iceland for VTs, going all out in Africa.I played according to old pattern about capturing Russian Capital.
But, if we try a one per game round 24 IPCs (24 VTs) bonus split between alliance members, this can give more attract to VTs.Another step can be to give 1 IPC per controlled VT at end of each income phase of a given Power.
For example, Germany can get up to 4 IPCs by end of G1 if Cairo is captured.
Even 5 IPCs if Caucasus is captured too. -
I’m not that persistent for Wake and Midway receiving planes instead of Infantry.
But what do you think of either replacing 1 Infantry in Philippines by 1 Tactical Bomber (B-17 were mainly used that way in South-East PTO.)
Or add 1 C5 StB unit in Philippines. It will not change anything into opening, unless Japan decided to skip this VTs (which would be very weird).
Anyway, if they do so, this StB can eventually be useful for USA.Prior to the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the 19th Bombardment Group had 35 B-17s in the Philippines. By 14 December only 14 remained. Beginning on 17 December, the surviving B-17s based there began to be evacuated to Australia, then were sent to Singosari Airfield, Java on 30 December 1941.
The 7th Bomb Group was originally scheduled to reinforce the Philippines in December 1941 from Fort Douglas, Utah, and the ground echelon had already left by ship from San Francisco. Pearl Harbor Attack led to ground echelon being returned to United States and the air echelon remained at Hamilton Field, California flying antisubmarine patrols. 9th Bomb Squadron deployed to Southwest Pacific in mid-December, travelling east via Floria, Brazil, across central Africa to the Middle East. Then via Arabia to Karachi, India via Singapore to Singosari Airfield, Java, joining the 19th BG on 14 January.
Both units would remain on Java until March 1942, taking part in the brave but ultimately futile attempts to defend the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies. The B-17s were never present in large enough numbers to make any real difference to the course of the campaign. The 19th BG withdrew to Australia with the B-17 survivors of the 9th Bomb Squadron, which was re-equipped with B-24s in India as part of Tenth Air Force. -
In Karelia SZ, I would place 1 DD, 1 Sub and 1 TP (for figuring convoys I suppose).
Russia needs this Sub to do something different than only land battle.
1 Sub in PTO is enough because it can make disturbing R1 lucky attack on Japan.To get a less scripted play in opening, maybe Baltic may get only 3 Infantry.
Belorussia, 1 Inf and 1 Tank, Ukraine 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 2 Fgs.
But West Russia can still have 2 TcBs and even 1 AAA…
While Karelia still have 1 Fg… -
IDK if it can be faster to work this way…
Here is below a different set-up which is similar to yours but with a lot more naval units.
I even add an IC in Canada.
Maybe Germany might see the need to use more u-boats in a way to block this built up.IDK if it can work to increase possibilities, strategic options.
I tried to solve the US West Coast issue, as I perceived it.
Now, you can have both Hawaii J1 and kind of Midway-Hawaii USA1.
It is around 35% success for USA1, of course it depends if Japan brings a third Carrier in Hawaiian SZ or a Battleship in Midway SZ. But doing this, may not be optimal for Japan income increase.Take a look, pick the save, revert things back. Take a snap shot.
With less words and more pictures, it may helps see faster where we disagree, discuss, disagree radically or agree to disagree, etc. -
I think it works! I think we’re done here, at least as far as an Alpha version to send out to the wider community. I can’t think of any changes that I feel confident would improve this setup. :-)
I tested a G3 Sea Lion, and it does not seem to work unless Britain is caught totally by surprise. The problem with leaving the Russian air force alive to conserve the German air force is that the Russians can just fly their planes over to London for extra defense. Also, if Britain sees the Sea Lion coming, then they can keep their African fleets on the west coast of Africa, and then a combined assault on UK2 + US2 can probably destroy the Axis Mediterranean fleet, which means two fewer transports that are available to hit London. Still, if everything goes perfectly, a Sea Lion could work. Japan has to keep the USA busy enough that it can’t afford to send any fighter reinforcements to London. The Sea Lion chances were 0% for Germany in my test, but if you remove 1 Russian fighter and 3 American fighters, then I think it switches to something like 20%.
I would prefer higher odds for a G3 Sea Lion, but I’m not sure how to make that happen without disturbing other aspects of the game.
I also tested an immediate G1 Barbarossa blitz, with Germany building mostly tanks and sending both Med transports to take the Caucasus on G1, plus using the Finnish troops to take Karelia G1. I was not able to take Karelia, but it did weaken Karelia enough that all of my eastern front forces were safe. UK & USA were able to save Moscow by steadily flying in fighters and sending reinforcements from India/Egypt, but this means that Japan would have become a monster (I did not actually use Japan’s turns for these two tests). I think a G1 blitz is much weaker than a more reasonable German opener that only attacks Baltic/Belorussia/Ukraine with land forces, and waits until G2 to attack Leningrad and Stalingrad – the optimal G1 move is probably to send one Med transport to Ukraine (so you don’t run out of infantry there to soak hits) and one Med transport to Egypt (for the TUV profit, and so those forces don’t wind up coming to the aid of Stalingrad a couple turns later). Still, the G1 blitz is an interesting alternative to have on the table, and depending on how Japan exploits the Allies’ distractions, it could be a viable opening!
I also tested some battles in the Pacific, and it seems to see-saw for quite a while, with Japan and the USA each able to destroy each other’s fleets at a profit, turn after turn. That’s pretty cool! It’s not obvious that either or both players would actually want to throw 60%+ of their budget into continuing to smash up fleets near Hawaii, but it’s good that that’s an option. The factories in Hawaii and Sydney go a long way toward making the South Pacific something worth fighting over; it really does seem to matter when you win control of a sea space. If America is off the coast of Hawaii and can hold it, that means a big boost in USA’s Pacific momentum because they can build a carrier in Pearl Harbor and fly in planes to land on it from the mainland. On the other hand, if Japan can deadzone the coast of San Francisco (not at all unlikely, if the battles go well for Japan and the USA tries to split its attention between both theaters!) then it can be a real challenge for the USA to make a Pacific comeback – even if they have ships near Hawaii or Mexico or whatever, those ships may be effectively dead for lack of an ability to reach reinforcements/safety. The M3 transports threaten San Francisco once the USA loses control of its sea zone, the submerging unblockable subs provide some additional fodder in regions that would otherwise be deadzoned, and the M3 cruisers and carriers equipped with 3.5 attack fighter/tacB pairs really help project offensive power three spaces forward instead of just two spaces forward. It’s all very exciting. I can’t be sure that it’s balanced, because there are hundreds of plausible combinations for Japan’s five fleets vs. USA’s three fleets, but that’s a good thing! There are options. :-)
Anyway, great work on this map. I vote we slap both of our names on it, submit it to the tripleA experimental map collection, and call it a success.
1941Argo_edit setupv2_TcBsRussia_SeaLionTest.tsvg
1941Argo_edit setupv2_TcBsRussia_BarbarossaTest.tsvg -
I think it works! I think we’re done here, at least as far as an Alpha version to send out to the wider community. I can’t think of any changes that I feel confident would improve this setup. :-)
I tested a G3 Sea Lion, and it does not seem to work unless Britain is caught totally by surprise. The problem with leaving the Russian air force alive to conserve the German air force is that the Russians can just fly their planes over to London for extra defense. Also, if Britain sees the Sea Lion coming, then they can keep their African fleets on the west coast of Africa, and then a combined assault on UK2 + US2 can probably destroy the Axis Mediterranean fleet, which means two fewer transports that are available to hit London. Still, if everything goes perfectly, a Sea Lion could work. Japan has to keep the USA busy enough that it can’t afford to send any fighter reinforcements to London. The Sea Lion chances were 0% for Germany in my test, but if you remove 1 Russian fighter and 3 American fighters, then I think it switches to something like 20%.
I would prefer higher odds for a G3 Sea Lion, but I’m not sure how to make that happen without disturbing other aspects of the game.
I also tested an immediate G1 Barbarossa blitz, with Germany building mostly tanks and sending both Med transports to take the Caucasus on G1, plus using the Finnish troops to take Karelia G1. I was not able to take Karelia, but it did weaken Karelia enough that all of my eastern front forces were safe. UK & USA were able to save Moscow by steadily flying in fighters and sending reinforcements from India/Egypt, but this means that Japan would have become a monster (I did not actually use Japan’s turns for these two tests). I think a G1 blitz is much weaker than a more reasonable German opener that only attacks Baltic/Belorussia/Ukraine with land forces, and waits until G2 to attack Leningrad and Stalingrad – the optimal G1 move is probably to send one Med transport to Ukraine (so you don’t run out of infantry there to soak hits) and one Med transport to Egypt (for the TUV profit, and so those forces don’t wind up coming to the aid of Stalingrad a couple turns later). Still, the G1 blitz is an interesting alternative to have on the table, and depending on how Japan exploits the Allies’ distractions, it could be a viable opening!
I also tested some battles in the Pacific, and it seems to see-saw for quite a while, with Japan and the USA each able to destroy each other’s fleets at a profit, turn after turn. That’s pretty cool! It’s not obvious that either or both players would actually want to throw 60%+ of their budget into continuing to smash up fleets near Hawaii, but it’s good that that’s an option. The factories in Hawaii and Sydney go a long way toward making the South Pacific something worth fighting over; it really does seem to matter when you win control of a sea space. If America is off the coast of Hawaii and can hold it, that means a big boost in USA’s Pacific momentum because they can build a carrier in Pearl Harbor and fly in planes to land on it from the mainland. On the other hand, if Japan can deadzone the coast of San Francisco (not at all unlikely, if the battles go well for Japan and the USA tries to split its attention between both theaters!) then it can be a real challenge for the USA to make a Pacific comeback – even if they have ships near Hawaii or Mexico or whatever, those ships may be effectively dead for lack of an ability to reach reinforcements/safety. The M3 transports threaten San Francisco once the USA loses control of its sea zone, the submerging unblockable subs provide some additional fodder in regions that would otherwise be deadzoned, and the M3 cruisers and carriers equipped with 3.5 attack fighter/tacB pairs really help project offensive power three spaces forward instead of just two spaces forward. It’s all very exciting. I can’t be sure that it’s balanced, because there are hundreds of plausible combinations for Japan’s five fleets vs. USA’s three fleets, but that’s a good thing! There are options. :-)
Anyway, great work on this map. I vote we slap both of our names on it, submit it to the tripleA experimental map collection, and call it a success.
Thanks Argo,
I checked your partial game. Seems fine.
I think it is interesting to left alive 1 or 2 Soviet planes.I’m actually trying this setup myself since you seems to agree with the few points I added in.
Moving VTs from Eastern Canada to Iceland and Poland to Ploesti in Romania need to be done, one day or another.
I’m not convinced about Rio over Carolines Islands, need to see deeper mid-game and how it impact balance.
I did not try a +1 $ single bonus at the end of a turn per VT owns and a +1$ to split between Alliance members. This will be next once the general rough balancing and depicting history will be done.The old Capital capture is dominating my play-tests.
Your Japanese fleet groups allow for a lot of openings. I like to feel there is too much things to do and not enough units to get the job done.
IDK for sure about West Coast fleet vs Midway fleet.
I’m still able to obliterate everything. And US1 counter-attack is not very punchy when all three full Carriers and a Battleship are all at Midway.
1 IJN Destroyer is needed in Midway against Soviet Sub but it allows to throw it in against West Coast fleet.At least, it reliefs UK fleet from an important power projection when all IJN Carriers are at Midway.
The need to control both Norway and North-Western Europe seems very hard on Germany.
I’m not sure about that one. It is blocking a lot of possibility for German Baltic Fleet.
Maybe only NWE need to be controlled?Here is a saved game of 3 rounds, it is G4, but not played.
I totally missed a Sea Lion. The start was awful, I lost too many Subs.
Also, I lacked coordination with Med Fleet.Japan was dominant at Midway but loose the edge against UK in South-East Asia.
Also, Submarines can be a real pain if there is no air cover to protect warships and TPs.
I lost 1 BB, 1 DD and 2 TPs to a Soviet Sub. And 1 Cruiser, 1 DD, 1 TP to 1 US Sub.I’m not so sure that Sub should not be block at all…
But, I would like a rule when crossing a SZ in which there is Destroyer…
Probably a good thing to implement. Each DD can roll 1@1 ASDef.
I forgot to apply this rule. And I feel very much OK.If you choose to move any type of surface ships through a sea zone containing one or more enemy submarines without stopping to fight those submarines, you must roll one die per enemy submarine (it does not matter how many ships you move, only how many enemy subs there are).
Your fleet takes one hit for each “1” rolled on the dice.
If you move through more than one sub-infested sea zone, repeat this process.But, it can be the other way around. Each DD roll once regardless of Sub number.
I believe Germany needs a bit more Infantry or Tank at start to make Sea Lion more plausible.
After a second opening try, I still feel it needs a bit more Infantry to fight on Eastern Front.
It was pretty much interesting to lose 4 planes and Russia kept its 2 TcBs. AAA rolls snake eyes.I made a V3: Germany, Poland and Romania received +1 Infantry.
NWE received 1 Armor.
Norway, moved 1 Infantry into Finland to reach 4 Infantry.IMO, the temptation to use planes to boost a Karelia G1 with 4 Infantry (vs 4 Inf and 1 Art) might rise the dilemma toward not launching plane on UK’s fleet and lets Subs doing the job, partially at least.
Extreme StBs purchase and Subs should probably be tested to be sure it is not OP.
1941Argo_edit setupv2_TcBsRussia4G.tsvg
1941Argo_edit setupv3_TcBsRussiaG1.tsvg -
Moving VTs from Eastern Canada to Iceland and Poland to Ploesti in Romania need to be done, one day or another.
I can get to that soon.
The old Capital capture is dominating my play-tests.
One thing we could try is assigning secondary capitals to each country – Rome, Vologda, Beijing, Ottawa, and Los Angeles? If you lose your primary capital you still get looted for one turn, but then you can carry on from your secondary capital even if you never retake your primary capital. I think it is already an option in the .xml.
At least, it reliefs UK fleet from an important power projection when all IJN Carriers are at Midway.
This is one of my favorite features of the game – Japan can dominate the central Pacific in the first couple of turns if they choose to use all of their naval resources on that goal, but as a result, the British navy from South Africa, India, ANZAC can consolidate and start taking back Burma, Malaya, Thailand, Java, Kwangtung, etc., and as a result Japan’s income will top out around 25 IPCs…not enough to keep replacing its losses vs. USA. If USA keeps building full-on Pacific with its 40 IPCs, then USA will eventually come out on top. On the other hand, Japan can split its attention between US and UK, with the result that British navy will be crippled and Japan will control Indian Ocean for a while, but US navy will quickly rebuild and stabilize near Hawaii while allowing USA to still invest resources in the Atlantic theater. I like this; it is very historical, and presents Japan with a tough but clear strategic decision.
The need to control both Norway and North-Western Europe seems very hard on Germany.
I’m not sure about that one. It is blocking a lot of possibility for German Baltic Fleet.
Maybe only NWE need to be controlled?Well, don’t forget that this cuts both ways – in the endgame, the Allies will have to take both Norway and NWE before they can threaten Berlin. But if we are going to weaken the restriction, I would say that the gate should be in Norway, not in NWE. NWE already has a factory and makes a good staging ground for further invasions of France/Germany. Norway is pretty useless if it is not one of the keys to the Baltic sea zone. If I were to revise map values, I would make Norway worth 3 IPCs and Finland worth 2 IPCs, like in AA50.
But, I would like a rule when crossing a SZ in which there is Destroyer…
Probably a good thing to implement. Each DD can roll 1@1 ASDef.I thought I implemented this already so it happens automatically! Are we working from different .xml? Did you shut off the “Always on AA” option?
I made a V3: Germany, Poland and Romania received +1 Infantry.
NWE received 1 Armor.
Norway, moved 1 Infantry into Finland to reach 4 Infantry.Unless you give the Soviets more infantry to match it, then I think Barbarossa becomes way too strong. In the previous version, when Germany uses both Med transports to hit Ukraine and/or Caucasus, and uses air force to hit Karelia, then Soviets can barely hold West Russia on R1 if they use every available unit (including the tank in Vologda). If you give Germany 4 more infantry on the eastern front, then Russia has to retreat literally to Moscow on R1, which feels too fast for me. It would not be fun to play Russia in that situation; you have no options for any counter-attacks or even for any advanced defensive positions; all you can do is retreat to capital and build infantry. Plus the UK/US have to rush fighters to Moscow, or even that will not hold. Not the kind of game I want to build.
Can you say a little more about why you think Germany needs more infantry on the eastern front?
Suggested Topics
