WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion

@jkprince indeed 🙂

Thank you both for your interest!

I’m reviewing all Vichy rules available out there, as I plan to make a unique mod, because I like historical realism and simplicity, with minimized luck of dice, and some “asymmetric balance”.

Some major points I’ve posted elsewhere in the forum:

The main issue for this expansion is how to develop French neutrality, while at the same time providing a bonus to Germany. Apparently ignored by most players, in real life (IRL), Germany economically exploited Vichy, which had to richly sustain 300,000 German troops stationed in Northern France. Therefore, in the game, it only makes total sense that Germany gets the 3 IPCs from Vichy Southern France.

Another related major issue is what to do with French colonies in terms of neutrality/occupation and IPC flows. I agree that the Vichy setup should reflect what happened IRL: North Africa, Syria, and Indochina go to Vichy, while other French colonies stay Free. However, it messes up Italy’s incursions into North Africa (as IRL, Hitler denied French colonies to Italy). I’m not sure yet as to the best approach to subjecting these colonies to invasion, occupation, and who gains IPCs (other than agreeing that Japan has easy access “rights” over Vichy Indochina), and also remote units…

Germany never fought Vichy. IRL, with Operation Torch, Germany simply occupied Vichy in 1942, with no resistance whatsoever. Vichy units were disbanded. That can be also the case in the game. Just remove Vichy units.

The uncertainty surrounding local pre-battles is quite interesting (will Vichy troops welcome or resist Allies in North Africa?..). However, I’d try to minimize dice randomness that is often used to decide some outcome. IRL, Vichy troops (just like Italians) surrendered as soon as seeing enemy superiority: thus, in the game, if Allies send more land + air units than defending Vichy units, then there should be no battle but quick surrender. Or, make it highly unlikely that a battle would ensue (for example, need to roll a 1).

I’m now working on my own house rules, for an expansion (HBG lingo) that is quite realistic, fun yet simple. If anyone is interested, let me know and I’ll be happy to share my rules when ready…

phd_angel@yahoo.com

Chicago, December 2020

What I would like is a package of poker chips (compatible with existing A&A versions) to use with 1914. I find that there simply isn’t room on the board for all the different stacks for each army, especially on the crowded western front.

So I just give each nation a single stack of chips with the required infantry unit on top.

The system I use is:

grey/white = infantry
red = artillery
green - tanks
blue = fighters

Additional colours might be reserved for new units vis:

black = bombers
yellow = cavalry

A nice touch would be for each colour to be embossed with the appropriate unit type.

Equivalent pieces for ships aren’t as important but maybe double sided chips for naval units?

James,

Should propose that in the delta threads!  Great idea!  Would seriously punish a round 12 invasion of Spain (+8 more defending infantry?  EEK!)

@wittmann:

Knp: I agree.

Ditto here!  I hope this really can be a fresh start this year for FMG, for sure, and I too wish I had a boatload of money I could invest.  I did make a modest little order to show my support, though, and to express tangibly that “no hard feelings” on my part.  Just remember, we can forgive a lot, but if you don’t tell us what’s going on for months at a time, we don’t know if we should even risk making orders for “in stock” items, as we might fear the company’s going out of business and can’t fulfill them.  So please, please keep us posted… And just as important, is not more so, keep in touch with Coach!  And please coordinate with him more closely in the future when you’re ready to roll out more new products… (…last I checked we were headed for a situation where we were going to have 3 different companies doing a Tiger I and none doing a Panzer IV, for instance…)

These are those washers in 3/4 that i posted earlier…painted so its easy to identify nation

I have studied extensively the economic dynamics of the added benefit of how nations faired following conquest, and concluded that the conquering player for the most part has not increased his total economic output from either liberation or conquest, and even to a lower degree has the nation that was invaded had lost any of its war making potential as a result of enemy occupied lands.

Cases:

German invasion of the Soviet Union only caused the Soviets to mobilize to a full war economy, moving potentially targeted areas (factories and industry) out of harms way. Secondly, even after the period of 1943-45 the Soviet economy rose at a even level in spite of having recaptured most if not all of her German occupied territories.

In Germany’s case she did benefit marginally with the conquest of france, because Vichy government was forced to pay for the war but this didn’t add nearly as much as the Germans slowly moving into a full wartime economy.

In the British case the loss of Singapore, parts of Egypt or Tobruk only served to embolden the conquerer and which served to deliver only a short term psychological blow to national morale.

Japan did benefit from the conquest of the Dutch colonies and was able to sustain her war from the newfound oil imports to offset the American oil embargo effects.

The invasion and liberation of France did not afford the allies with income, nor did it cost the Germans anything but prestige, a few lost U-boat bases, and some strategic air fields… but no tangible economic benefits other than the stoppage of some foodstuffs and payments from Vichy.

I think in all these cases they represent examples of only lost or gained oil reserves, but did not effect the production of airplanes, tanks, ships, or raising of new cadres of Infantry formations. In Germanys case conquered peoples offered a few divisions worth of volunteers but the effect was marginal.

All of this points to the direction that it may be more realistic and in fact solve some of the games issues, by  doing the following:

Each nation is established with a basic starting income and this does not change, except by possible investments into the economy to grow it to full war making potential.

what does this mean?

It means that for example the Soviets, Americans and Germans had economy that took time to mature and that can be presented in the game, by setting benchmarks to illustrate its growth over each turn or following the nations victory conditions.  For example: Germany avoids Moscow and instead takes the oil fields of Baku… they would be rewarded each turn with a set value in IPC, but otherwise they maintain the original income.

Secondly, note that each nation has DIFFERENT IPC starting values… so the question would also be how do the Axis try to get more money than what they start with?

They can invest in building the economy. Say they have 45 IPC basic income, they decide to save 10 IPC and you multiply the 10 IPC to the nations growth rate ( say Germany is at 50% growth rate) , so on all future turns her new starting figure will be at 50 IPC  ( remember: this is just an example).

possible benefits:

–Nobody is gonna keep taking stuff just to collect the money
–It saves alot of time to figure out what money you have
–it will boost SBR campaigns which done seem to really be part of the game
– it will encourage submarine warfare and ENR attacks
– All these silly invasions would keep happening
– effective elimination of a game phase ( collect income), also solving that issue about double collection.

Now im sure some of you will say it will extend the game and make it longer, but if you also adopt the all Axis/ All Allies move sequence the time is a washout.

Check New thread,

Game completed