Posts made by KurtGodel7

I was playing the Allies in a game of Revised. I was feeling a bit bored by the usual Kill Germany First strategy, and decided to try something new. Something out of the ordinary. Something unexpected! That something unexpected involved the U.S. putting everything it had into the Pacific. And building battleships! :) By the time I made my move, the U.S. had well over ten battleships, plus a couple carriers and some other naval stuff.

To counter this, Japan built mostly submarines, but wasn’t afraid to throw in the occasional carrier or destroyer. Meanwhile, Germany made good progress on the Soviet front, gradually pushing them back. (Probably the biggest flaw of this U.S. Pacific strategy is that it develops slowly.)

The U.S. moved its fleet out to the Solomon Islands. Instead of attacking, Japan kept its fleet by Tokyo, and added to it in the place units phase. That was a mistake. On my subsequent American turn, I attacked, fought for one round, and retreated. My 10 or 12 battleships each healed after that battle, in contrast to just two battleship heals for the Japanese player. I finished off the Japanese fleet shortly thereafter.

By now I had control over the Pacific, with a fleet possessing a whopping 15 battleships! :) Unfortunately, Moscow had fallen, as one might expect. Meanwhile, Japan was piling a lot of units onto Tokyo to guard against an American invasion. By this point, he’d lost his major non-Tokyo islands, and so was hurting a little income-wise.

The U.S. faced a decision at this point: it could move its fleet toward Tokyo and bombard Japan into submission. (A tempting thought!) Or it could move its fleet into the Indian Ocean, with the intention of killing any Axis units in French Indo-China, India, Persia, Trans-Jordan, or Egypt. I’d owned Africa throughout most of the game, so the latter option would give me the chance to maintain control over it. Due to that and some other reasons, I opted for the latter strategy. My basic plan was to use my factories in the East Indies and Borneo to ship about eight units to South Asia each turn, with a few extra units potentially arriving into Northeast Asia from Alaska.

The U.S. took French Indo-China and India from Japan; which by this point was too weak to put up much of a fight in a mainland land war. Between them, the U.S. and Britain had built up a sizable force in India. I was rather pleased with myself. But then, the Axis player used the massive German force that had taken Moscow to destroy my India force. He won that battle very convincingly, and had nine tanks at the end.

Unfortunately for him, the U.S. counterattacked with an amphibious assault. The U.S.'s 15 battleships destroyed those nine German tanks during the support shot phase; allowing the U.S. land units to take India without being fired on. Meanwhile, American units had slowly pushed northward, capturing territories like Kwangtung, China, Manchuria, and so forth. Units shipped in from Alaska had nibbled away at places like the Soviet Far East and Yakut. Japan had been almost completely driven off the mainland. Britain’s control over Africa gave it the income it needed to pester and distract Germany.

After those 9 German tanks were killed by battleship support shots, the Axis player conceded. He apparently realized that any land territory bordering the Indian Ocean was not a realistic option for him as long as that battleship fleet remained alive. Without the income from those Indian Ocean territories, and with the balance in East Asia gradually shifting in favor of the Americans, it was clear the economic balance of the game favored the Allies. This was the first and only game of Revised I’d won in which I’d lost Moscow but had failed to either take or seriously threaten an Axis capital.

By the end of the game, at least 2/3 of the overall Allied war effort and projection of power was being conducted by the U.S. British harassment of Germany constituted the other third. This was the strongest I’d ever seen the U.S. in any Axis and Allies game. This was a far more memorable and enjoyable win than a standard-issue “Kill Germany first” win would have been.

@maverick_76:

But the Tiger was almost impregnable from enemy fire. There were accounts of some that took 50+ shells from Shermans and the only thing that was damaged were the treads.

A very good point. The Tiger I had much better armor than a Sherman, and a better weapon as well. It could destroy enemy tanks from long distances, and many kinds of enemy tanks–including the Sherman–could not penetrate the front armor of a Tiger I from any distance.

But the Panther was like that too. Its front armor was actually better than that of a Tiger I. Its main gun–though a lower caliber than that of the Tiger I’s–actually could penetrate thicker armor than the Tiger I’s could. The Panther’s main gun used a very long barrel and a powerful explosive charge to achieve this. The Panther was also lighter and more nimble than the Tiger I. Part of the reason for the Panther’s lighter weight was because its armor was thinner on the sides and on top than was the Tiger I’s. This made the Panther more vulnerable to flanking attacks and aerial attacks than the Tiger I. The combat value of the two tank designs was roughly comparable, with the Tiger I costing a lot more than the Panther.

Later in the war, Germany ceased manufacturing Tiger I tanks in favor of the Tiger II. The Tiger II (also known as the King Tiger) had the sloping armor of a Panther, and not the relatively vertical armor of the Tiger I. It was better-armored, better armed, and heavier than a Tiger I. Despite its large size and underpowered engine, its mobility was comparable to that of most Allied tanks. Its large treads allowed its weight to be spread out over a large surface area; thereby improving performance. This was a truly formidable tank but, unlike the Panther, was never intended to be Germany’s main battle tank. While I have been unable to locate an exact production cost for the Tiger II, I encountered a statement that the Tiger II was significantly more expensive to manufacture than a Tiger I. The Tiger I, in turn, was between twice and four times as expensive to build as a Panther.

Ultimately, Germany planned to cease manufacturing its existing tank designs; replacing them with the Entwicklung Series (E-series) tanks. The E-50 Standardpanzer was to replace the Panther and Tiger I; and the E-75 was to replace the Tiger II. The main intended benefit of the E-series was the simplification of tank design and reduction of production cost. It was also hoped the program would help solve some of the mechanical problems which had plagued the Panther and Tiger tank designs. (Though parenthetically, significant progress had been made on those problems in any case.)

@MrBlack103:

:-o

The utter and complete perfection of those rules astounds me.

Thanks! :) I’ve been working on these rules, off and on, for two to three years now, and they’ve come a long way from my initial ideas!

@SgtBlitz:

Where is the German supertank technology, anyway?

A good question! I did a lot of thinking about tanks in my rules set. In the real war, the two best tank designs were the Soviets’ T-34 and the Germans’ Panther tanks. Early in the game, the Soviets have the best tanks (3 hitpoints compared to 2 for most other nations, and 1 for Japan’s light tanks). Later in the game, the Soviets can upgrade their T-34s to T-34-85s. This means they’re increasing their combat dice from 2 (which is what standard tanks have) to 3. Another technology–simplify the T-34–reduces the cost of Soviet tanks from 5 PUs down to 4.

Germany can research the Panther tank tech, which makes its tanks have ten hitpoints, roll ten combat dice, and cost 8 PUs each. By the time both nations are done upgrading their tanks, 8 PUs will buy the Soviet player 6 combat dice and 6 hitpoints worth of tanks, compared to 10 and 10 for Germany. I realize that’s an advantage for the Axis, but–trust me on this one–the Axis needs it!

I didn’t include the Tiger tank design in this rules set, because in the real war, a Tiger cost four times as much as a Panther, but was less than four times as useful on the battlefield.

@MrBlack103:

-every concievable power ever
-slightly more realistic combat rules (Bombers hitting fighters on a 4?), especially in regards to surface combat vs. air
-politics sounds pretty interesting
-individual victory conditions so that even if one side is winning, the winning player is yet to be determined
-national advantages + disadvantages so that each power looks and feels “unique”
-really big tech tree
-more scenarios
-no cardboard pieces (maybe even little flags for occupation markers)
-more territories
-active battlefields
-some sort of AI for neutrals
-more in-depth American neutrality
-totally unique moulds for each power (unless some historical reason). NEED UNIQUE ANZAC INF!
-actual kamikaze attacks with your aircraft

To sum that up, more stuff in general.

I’ve addressed some of the above things in my rules set.

• Fighters are excellent at anti-air, but not good for much else. A dogfight takes place at the beginning of each combat round, making the air superiority fighters provide critical.
• Dive bombers are specialized for attacks against surface targets (land and naval). They also give you some anti-air; and a faint hint of strategic bombing.
• Strategic bombers have little value in tactical combat, but have the ability to do permanent economic damage on strategic bombing raids. Fortunately, you can defend against them with fighters and (if necessary) other air units. There is never any nerfing of airplanes’ anti-air rolls; so a player must earn some degree of air superiority–or at least parity–for his strategic bombing missions to succeed.
• Most units have multiple hitpoints. Injured units are killed before non-injured units become injured; preventing the multiple hitpoints concept from becoming overpowered. This means that a heavily armored tank will be harder to kill than a light tank; and that a jet will be harder to shoot down than a piston-driven aircraft.
• Luck no longer plays any role in technological research. The role of luck has been reduced for combat.
• Nations have their own unique lists of advantages and, in some cases, disadvantages. Each nation has its own tech tree. These are different enough to give each nation its own feel.
• To collect income from most remote territories (almost all islands, Africa, South America, etc.) you must have a transport in the convoy zone adjacent to the territory in question. This makes convoy raiding a more viable strategy than ever. A player can physically sink enemy transports, or, barring that, can at least drive them away from wherever they would need to be for the enemy to collect income.
• While there is no neutral U.S. rule in the main rules set, I’ve created one for the rules variants. The “neutral” U.S. collects income normally but experiences double its normal unit costs. To compensate for that, it is allowed to send double the normal allotment of lend-lease aid, and can also physically ship non-infantry units to its allies’ territory. Those units become the property of the Allies that receive them. The Axis player is allowed to either attack the U.S. at any time, or to allow America to remain “neutral” for the rest of the war. Attacking can cause a devastating short-term effect on U.S. naval fleets and transport capacity, and also eliminates the special lend-lease advantages the U.S. had been receiving. However, an attack also means that the U.S. is now allowed to attack the Axis, and that its unit costs are now normal. Effectively, an attack on the U.S. causes significant short-term harm to the Allied war effort, but a long-term gain.

@Brain:

Technology should be eliminated from the game.

I’ll agree with you up to a point. I have never really liked the way technology was implemented. Too luck-based! Even in the Anniversary Edition rules set, there’s the luck element of the time delay; plus the luck element of whether you ultimately end up with a tech you wanted.

Chief Technical Officer: How is that research coming on that new tank?
Researcher: It’s coming! It should be ready any minute now.
Chief Technical Officer: Good. We need those improved tanks yesterday.

Later . . .

Chief Technical Officer: How about those new tanks?
Researcher: You’re going to be excited. Just not in the way you might think.
Chief Technical Officer: What do you mean?
Researcher: Think of this like Christmas. You never know what you’re going to get until you unwrap the present.
Chief Technical Officer: I don’t think I like where this is going.
Researcher: It turns out that when you sent us off to develop improved tanks, some of us got a little distracted, one thing led to another, and before you knew it, we’d developed super submarines! Our submarines will be the best in the world, hands down, no holds barred.
Chief Technical Officer: We don’t even have a sub fleet. We have no plans to build a sub fleet, because we’re locked into a land war. The very existence of our nation requires us to at least hold our own in that land war! Why would you develop an improved submarine instead?
Researcher: These things happen.
Chief Technical Officer: What do you mean, “These things happen?” Who on Earth sets about trying to develop an improved tank, only to develop an improved submarine instead? When someone proposed an improved tank turret, did someone else respond with, “Tank turret. Submarine conning tower. Same difference.”?
Researcher: You know how these things go.
Chief Technical Officer: No, I don’t know how these things go. I want that improved tank, and I want it yesterday!
Researcher: That brings me to my other news. The funding for this research project was pretty much used up by that improved sub we just designed. If you want us to improve your tanks, we’re going to need some more cash.
Chief Technical Officer: What guarantee do I have that, this time, I’ll get the improved tank?
Researcher: Some of the guys were tossing around ideas for improved tanks. Maybe those will go somewhere. Then again, there are other schools of thought out there. Some feel that since we now have the world’s best subs, it’s time to improve our naval shipyards. So you never know where your research effort is going to go! :)
Chief Technical Officer: What?!?!

Fortunately, the above problem is solved in my rules set. There is no luck element to technology research, and you always know in advance exactly which tech you’ll be getting.

I’ve just updated my Flames and Steel rules set. To those already familiar with it; it’s become a lot better. To those who haven’t seen it before, it is based on the following key concepts:

• Unit stats include anti-land, anti-naval, anti-air, and strategic bombing values. Fighters are very strong at anti-air, but not overly useful for much else. Dive bombers are good at anti-land and anti-naval, decent at anti-air, but very mediocre at strategic bombing. Strategic bombers can, if left unchecked, have a devastating impact on an enemy’s economy; but are mediocre at other tasks.

• Most units have multiple hitpoints. The way that unit targeting works means that the first injured unit will get destroyed before the next non-injured unit becomes injured.

• Research plays a pivotal role in this game; and there is no element of luck involved in research. You pay a fixed research cost, and you get your technology.

• Industrialization is also of key importance. Nations’ economies typically grow stronger over the course of the game.

• Controlling the ocean is more important than ever. Having transports physically located off the coasts of islands and the more remote land territories is necessary to collect income from such places.

• Naval combat has become a paper-rock-scissors of sorts. Fighters destroy dive bombers, dive bombers destroy surface ships, escorts destroy planes and subs, battleships destroy escorts, and subs destroy battleships.

• Manpower points play a key role in this game. No matter how much territory you conquer, the size of your infantry force will always be limited by your nation’s population base.

• The impact of luck has been reduced. All die rolls hit on a four or less; though some units get to roll more dice than others. A player rolling three dice, each with a 2/3 chance of hitting, has a less than 4% chance of coming away without a hit. Conversely, a player rolling 12 dice, each with a 1/6 chance of hitting, stands an over 11% chance of not getting a hit. (Exactly two hits are expected in both cases).

Please let me know what you guys think. And in particular, if there’s anything in the Rules Variants section you think I should include in the main rules set.

America should only ever go to war if attacked; FDR didn’t dare send American boys to fight overseas otherwise, even after getting re-elected in November.

@Brain:

Well then nobody would ever attack the US in the game.

Both of you have good points. I’m tempted to address this issue in my rules set. The below text is an idea I’ve recently come up with, and which I haven’t yet posted to that rules set.

While the U.S. is neutral, it can do the following:
1. Collect and spend IPCs.
2. Load up to 24 IPCs onto its transports each turn. (A transport can hold 6 IPCs, so we’re talking four transports total.) These IPCs can be shipped and unloaded into friendly factories, and become the property of whichever nation owns the factories.
3. Build and move units. But it pays double the price for any units it builds.
4. It can move tanks, artillery, and planes onto the soil of other Allied players. At the end of each Ally’s turn, whatever American units happen to be on that player’s soil become the property of that player. (Does not apply to American units on Canadian soil.)
5. It can conduct research. However, the U.S. is limited to only one research center while neutral.
6. It can initiate attacks against German naval forces in the Atlantic, just as it did in 1940 while still technically neutral.

After the U.S. is attacked, the following happens:
1. All the IPCs and MPs it may have stored are returned to the bank. Immediately after the attacker has concluded his attacks, the U.S. performs a one-time collect income action to make up for this. (This is to prevent the U.S. player from stockpiling IPCs while waiting for unit prices to fall.)
2. The U.S. player can now only load 12 IPCs onto transports each turn.
3. American units on non-American Allied soil no longer become the property of other Allies.
4. The U.S. is allowed to build additional research centers.
5. The U.S. can attack Axis players without restrictions.

24 IPCs of lend-lease may seem like a lot. But bear in mind that the U.S.'s starting income is 71 IPCs, and will grow to 126 IPCs over the course of the game through industrializations.

Under this rules set, would it be worthwhile for the Axis to attack the U.S.? Possibly. The U.S. is required to have a lot of transports in various places to collect its full income; with each missing transport associated with a 3 IPC economic penalty. Taking a bite out of that transport fleet would create a temporary income penalty for the U.S. Then the U.S. would have to build replacement transports, plus the military ships with which to defend them. It would likely be four or more rounds before the U.S. had fully recovered from the initial Axis naval attacks. Plus, there’s something to be said for forcing the U.S. to attack separately from other Allies, rather than merging its units with those of the British, or, worse, the Soviets! Under these circumstances, I think that in some games, the optimal strategy would be to attack the U.S.; and in other games the Axis players would be better off leaving it alone.

@Flashman:

Kurt; 2 points:

One of the principle reasons for attacking in the Mediterranean/Middle East is to establish a southern front against Russia (i.e. through the Caucasus), enabling Germany to grab the vital oil centres early in the attack.  Having to divert large forces to attack the area from the north in summer 1942 (rather than press towards Moscow) fatally wounded the last chances of winning in Russia.

Also, its been calculated that Germany gained far more in raw materials from Russia under the Hitler-Stalin pact than it ever did by occupying the most productive areas of the USSR.  Of course Hitler believed he would have the lot before very long…

Actually Germany should get an IPC boost from Russia as long as they are not at war, as Stalin was keen to see Germany and the UK grind each other down and was very happy to supply the Germans with what they needed.  It was when they tried to take what they needed that their war economy began to break down.

These are excellent points. I agree with everything you said, with one disclaimer: a successful North African/Middle Eastern campaign would have required a favorable naval situation for the Axis in the Mediterranean. I don’t know how close the Axis was to being able to achieve that. Beyond that, however, what you’ve described sounds like it would have been a much better policy, especially in hindsight.

While the idea of a North African/Middle Eastern strategy was discussed, Hitler opted against it for several reasons:

• He underestimated the present strength of the Soviet Union. Germany’s military planners thought the Soviets had 200 divisions. They had 600.
• Hitler’s impulse was to destroy the Soviet Union as quickly as possible, thereby depriving it of the time to complete its industrialization. What neither he nor other German leaders realized was that the Soviets were much further along in the process of industrialization and militarization than had been realized. It was not the Soviet Union which needed time to catch up with Germany–it was Germany that needed time to catch up with the Soviet Union!
• The Soviets had purged their army a few years earlier. That purge created a temporary leadership void–a void exacerbated by a subsequent switch from one kind of military doctrine to another. These factors seemed to present a very tempting (if relatively short) window of opportunity during which the Soviets could be quickly and easily defeated.
• Even though the U.S. was still neutral in the spring of '41, its industrial might was being increasingly turned against Germany. In 1940, American aircraft shipments to Britain were in the same ballpark as German aircraft production. And the U.S. had plans to increase its aircraft production capacity many-fold, with those aircraft to be sent to Britain to bomb German cities. Hitler’s fear of America’s industrial strength made him impatient to do something quickly, before American industrial strength could have a decisive impact. His hope was to gobble up the Soviet Union as quickly as possible, because later on he would need all Germany’s strength to defend against Anglo-American aircraft production.

But I agree that whether or not Hitler could afford to wait that extra year to invade the Soviet Union, he needed to wait. To grab the oil and raw materials you mentioned, to gain the extra places from which to invade, to give Germany’s military production a chance to start catching up to the Soviets’, and to weaken the British war effort. Still, my conclusion is based mostly on information which was not available to the German leadership at the time. If I had had only the information the German military planners had had, the decision to wait a year before invading would seem a lot less obvious.

What I’ve done about this in my rules set is to treat capitals like other territories. But with some exceptions:
1. I’ve included manpower points as a separate resource, which are required to produce infantry. Nation’s capitals always produce manpower points; and often provide the lion’s share of the manpower points a nation receives.
2. The game features research centers (which provide research points) and industrializations (which increase the IPC value of the underlying territory). A capital is a natural place to perform these territorial improvements, making the loss of a capital more critical.

The loss of Moscow would have represented the loss of a major industrial area, infantry recruiting ground, and transportation hub. But the Soviets would have, and could have, fought on, and kept right on producing and recruiting, long after that city had fallen. I created the above rules about capitals (no special treatment) with a Moscow scenario in mind.

But I realize the above does not do a particularly good job of simulating the fall of Paris/the emergence of Vichy France. Nor does it represent the defection of Italy. (Though that was not caused by the loss of a capital, as Mussolini was overthrown while the Allies were still a long way from Rome.)

@SgtBlitz:

Hmmm, historically, Germany had just signed a non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union in Aug 1939, in which they partitioned Poland.  The West viewed this as a stab-in-the-back since Hitler’s Germany was supposed to be a bulwark of Western civilization against the Communists in Russia.  A lot of Western politicians (Neville Chamberlain, specifically) had also been willing to back Hitler through his aggressive tactics in acquiring the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia from 1936-1938 since he had been such a loud and fierce opponent of the Communists.   A lot of the decision to declare war by the Western Powers on Germany if it invaded Poland was based on the weariness of playing the back and forth both sides game between the East and West.  Plus obviously Hitler could not be trusted.

Though, Germany DID backstab the Reds in Jun 1941, only 2 years after signing the non-aggression pact, so invading in 1940 probably wouldn’t be that much different…  Wonder how Larry is going to put in the peace treaty between the Reds and Germany at game start?  Or if its possible to reswitch alliances between the East to West again and be at peace with France and UK at beginning?

With the Soviet militarization and industrialization (begun in the late '20s), and Germany’s militarization (begun in the early '30s), many felt conflict between the two sides was inevitable. But it was far from clear that the Western democracies would take the German side. Motivated by some combination of pro-communism and anti-Germanism, the French government signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union in 1935. The Czech government did the same thing that same year. Many felt that if or when war came, it would be Germany on one side and the Western democracies plus the Soviets on the other. The Germans would stand no chance in such a war, which is why many nations chose pro-communist/democratic foreign policies in the late '30s.

The fact that things didn’t turn out that way was not due to any lack of eagerness on the Western democracies’ part. The plan failed because of Joseph Stalin, who regarded both the Nazis and the Western democracies as enemies. Knowing that Germany would be roughly equally matched in a war against Britain and France, Stalin hoped for a long, grinding, devastating war between the two sides; similar to WWI. A war which did not involve the Soviet Union. After the Nazis and the Western democracies had been bled white fighting each other, the Red Army would move into the heart of Europe to fill the resulting power vacuum.

In 1939, France and Britain made two specific promises to Poland:
1. If Poland was invaded by Germany, the British and French would declare war on Germany. This promise did not apply to a Soviet invasion.
2. France would launch a full-scale invasion of Germany within 15 days of the start of the war.

While the first promise was kept, the second was ignored. Poland, having relied on false promises from the French government, was put in a terrible position. The Polish government had opted against reconciliation with Germany (which would have required the return of Polish-occupied German territory) or a reconciliation with the Soviet Union (which would have required a significant westward adjustment of the Polish-Soviet border). The Polish foreign policy would have represented a serious calculated risk even if its Western democratic allies had kept their promises. The fact that they didn’t turned Poland’s foreign policy into sheer suicide.

The next question is why the French government chose to mislead the Polish government both before and during the invasion of Poland. While there are many possible explanations for that, I feel the below is the most likely.
1. The French government had decided it was time to go to war against Germany. By the spring of 1940, Allied military strength in France–in terms of men and tanks–was equivalent or superior to its German counterpart. Plus Britain and France, combined, had significantly more military production capacity than the Germans.
2. To persuade the French and British people to go along with that war, some trigger was needed. A German invasion of Poland was one potential trigger.
3. The French wanted a defensive war, especially after their experience in WWI. French military doctrine of 1939 was based on fighting on defense, a fact reflected in the French military’s construction of the Maginot Line.

The deliberate sacrifice of Poland would have represented a way for the French government to get the defensive war against Germany it thought it wanted. While other possible explanations of the French foreign policy of 1939 could perhaps be devised, the idea that the French government was somehow trying to help Poland is not supported by the evidence.

@allboxcars:

@Brain:

All I am saying is that it should not be a luck thing. It should be automatic.

naw, I can’t get behind that.
I think there should be a random element with respect to when you make the big break-thru especially for whiz kid stuff like jet fighters.
And naturally, with increasing certainty the greater you invest in it to the point it’s almost a statistical sure thing.

Having said that, there should be very little randomness about what you end up with.
“hey sir, you know that rocket engine we’re working on? Well it’s still flaming out but now it’s churning out war bonds!  who’d a thunk it eh?”

And some of the techs are just simple doctrinal advancements or new applications of existing tech. If it doesn’t require guys in lab coats - like war bonds - then it shouldn’t be random at all.

But hey that’s just me.

I agree that jet fighters are whiz kid stuff. To address that issue, I’ve limited each nation’s available techs to a list roughly corresponding with the techs it had managed to develop in the real war. Germany can research jets, because by the end of the war it had managed to develop very effective jet aircraft. The Americans can research long-range aircraft, because later in the war American aircraft had significant longer ranges than anyone else’s. The Americans can also develop heavier/better strategic bombers (the Superfortress). The Germans and the Soviets can develop better tanks and better infantry. Each nation tends to have its own niche: Germany and the U.S. are the best in the air, and Germany and the Soviet Union are the best on land. Japan’s ability to wage an impressive land war has been weakened through a lack of manpower points, unimpressive land technology, economic factors, the inclusion of a lot of space between the Pacific and Moscow, and a strengthened Chinese resistance effort.

Historically, Germany and its European allies represented the threat to the Soviet Union, and I feel the game should reflect this. An Axis strategy of Germany turtles/Japan takes Moscow would be historically inaccurate: Japan didn’t have nearly enough land war strength to pull that off. During WWII, the Soviet Union produced 105,000 tanks to Japan’s 2,500. The Soviets produced 520,000 artillery pieces to Japan’s 13,000. Those numbers don’t exactly paint a picture of the Rising Sun being raised over the Kremlin, especially when the Japanese Army was bogged down in China and elsewhere.

@Flashman:

I’m wondering to what extent German politics will be dictated by Hitler’s personal goals, rather than those the Germany player may wish to attain.

Specifically, will the German player be able to postpone the attack on Russia in order to follow the Mediterranean strategy favoured by some of his commanders, particularly the navy?

Opinion is divided as to the wisdom of this approach; on the one hand it may have accelerated US entry into the war before Russia had been dealt with; on the other the conquest of the Middle East would’ve provided direct entry into the Caucasus (from the south) making the invasion of the USSR a much easier proposition.

From what I read into comments so far the game has been designed to make the German-Soviet conflict pretty much automatic in a couple of turns, thus following Hitler’s idealogical obsession rather than what may have been a more sound strategy.

While Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was consistent with his strong ideological antipathy towards communism, ideology was not the only motivating factor. IN 1940, Hitler found himself involved in an unproductive air and sea war with Britain, with the British producing aircraft at a faster pace than Germany. Add in American production shipped to Britain (which was considerable), and Hitler felt he had to do something to change the equation. Because long-term, the combined industrial strength of Britain and the U.S. would have crushed Germany.

Another factor was the British food blockade, which resulted in a severe food shortage in German-occupied Europe.

Hitler felt that the conquest of the Soviet Union would secure a sufficient food supply for Germany, access to raw materials, and would create a significant increase in Germany’s available workforce and industrial capacity. These things would allow him to meet British and American air efforts on a somewhat equal footing. In addition, Hitler felt (correctly) that Stalin would invade Germany sooner or later, so it would be better to get the inevitable war with the Soviets out of the way quickly, before they had the chance to build up.

However, the German general staff underestimated how militarized the Soviet Union actually was in 1941. They thought that the Soviet Army had only 200 divisions, and that the heart of that army could be encircled and destroyed in a relatively quick blitzkrieg operation. In fact, the Soviet Army consisted of 600 divisions in the spring of '41. The Soviets were also considerably further along in their industrialization and military production efforts than the Germans had realized, and outproduced Germany by a margin of 3:1 or 4:1 in nearly every category of land weapons in 1942. The Soviets even built twice as many military aircraft as Germany did that year.

In hindsight, it would have made more sense for Germany to have postponed its invasion of the Soviet Union to swallow up North Africa and the Middle East. That task would have required a strong Axis naval presence in the Mediterranean, good supply lines, cooperation with Italy, and several other factors. Postponing Barbarossa would also have given the German war industry time to catch up to that of the Soviet Union. (Which it did by 1944, both because of internal improvements to German industry, and because of Germany’s access to Slavic workers and other resources from its war in the east.)

Stalin saw both the Nazis and the Western democracies as equally his enemies. He hoped for a long, destructive war between the two sides–a war that would bleed both sides dry without involving the Soviet Union. Then, after both sides were depleted, the Soviet Army would move into Europe and pick up the pieces. Given this way of thinking, it is likely that Stalin would have left Hitler alone for several years, had Hitler chosen to focus on the Middle East. Stalin also knew that Britain could purchase large numbers of aircraft from the U.S., thereby balancing out any production losses it might experience from the loss of some of its Empire.

Tech is a very significant part of the rules set I’ve developed. I’ve eliminated the luck element entirely: you choose a tech, you pay its fixed price, and then you get the tech. Some techs have other techs as prerequisites. Some techs cost more than others.

You could argue that from a realism standpoint, there was a luck factor involved with developing tech. But let’s be real here: 1) there’s enough luck-based stuff in the game already. 2) If you throw enough resources at, say, developing a better tank, odds are you’ll come away with something for your efforts. And that something will consist of a tank that’s been improved in some way, as opposed to, say, war bonds or a super submarine or long range aircraft.

Technological advances were a critical factor in WWII. A unit that was considered top-of-the-line in 1940 or 1941 would likely be seen as an obsolete piece of junk by '43 or '44. This was especially true of aircraft, but was also true of tanks.

@Brain:

If you want more realism. Each piece should have different attack and defense values when engaged in air,ground  or naval attacks. Bombers attacking at a value of 4 makes sense when attacking ground units, but not against fighters.

There are three possible methods for doing this:
1. The Larry Harris way. Units have:

• An attack value
• A defense value
  2. The method I used in my rules set. Units have:
• A land combat value
• A naval combat value
• An air combat value
  3. Combining the two methods. Units would have:
• An attack value (land)
• A defense value (land)
• An attack value (naval) . . . etc.

Method three results in six different combat values; making it both the most realistic and the most complex. The methods Larry and I used are relatively similar in their complexity, but involve differing trade-offs with respect to realism. Infantry hiding behind trenches should have an advantage–an advantage which Larry’s system incorporates. Mine does not, because all units have the same land combat values whether they are on offense or defense. But to make up for that, my rules set allows for the inclusion of air-to-air combat–combat for which fighters are specialized. It has the following definitions for aircraft:

Fighter
Anti-air combat value: 4
Land combat value: 1
Naval combat value: 1
Movement: 4
Cost: 10

Fighter bomber
Anti-air combat value: 2
Land combat value: 4
Naval combat value: 5
Strategic bombing value: 1 IPC
Movement: 4
Cost: 10

Strategic bomber
Dogfight value: 1
Land combat value: 2
Naval combat value: 2
Strategic bombing value: 3 IPCs. Plus a permanent, 1 IPC reduction in the territory’s value.
Movement: 6
Cost: 15

@SgtBlitz:

Neutrality that lasts as long as you don’t attack neutral powers.  (Otherwise, what’s point of neutrality, unless you like jumping the gun?)  In 1940, the USA wasn’t at war with either Japan or Germany, and didn’t really want to go to war either.

The above statement is not fully accurate. The American people felt disillusioned by their experience in WWI. (Which they had been told was a war to make the world safe for democracy, but which turned out to be a war to make the world safe for France to exploit Germany.) They were, accordingly, deeply isolationist, when just a generation later the idea was tossed around of once again going to war against Germany.

But America’s elites–most especially including FDR–strongly favored war with Germany. The media was also becoming pro-war; and that became more pronounced as media consolidation occurred. Between the influence of a pro-war administration, a pro-war media, and other pro-war elites, it is probable that even without an Axis attack, America would have gradually drifted into war, much as it had in WWI. By 1940, the U.S. Navy was already participating in joint search and destroy missions against German submarines.

London, by the end of June 1940 was expecting delivery from the United States of no less than 10,800 aircraft and 13,000 aero-engines over the next eighteen months. This was in addition to the Britain’s own production of 15,000 military aircraft. At the same time, the British Ministry of Aircraft Production was negotiating with the Americans to order many thousands more. By way of comparison, total German aircraft production came to only 10,826 aircraft and in 1941 it expanded to only 12,000, a disappointing increase which we will discuss in greater detail below. In addition, there was America’s own gigantic rearmament programme, which tilted the balance even further against Germany. In fact, so large were the combined demands of the British and American programmes that they stretched even America’s industrial resources. But the United States did not respond by seeking to restrict British purchases; quite the contrary. On 23 July 1940 British procurement agents in Washington were invited to a clandestine meeting with American industrial planners, from which emerged a scheme to expand the capacity of the United States aircraft industry so that it would be able to deliver no less than 72,000 aircraft per annum, guaranteeing a supply to the British of 3,000 planes per month, three times the current German output.

Adam Tooze, The Wages of Destruction, 405 - 407

Even though the United States was still technically at peace with Germany in 1940, the former nation’s industrial might was already being put to work to crush the latter.

I’ve updated the site to include setup information and a partial attempt at a map. (The latter needs some work.) Probably so does the former, especially from a game balance perspective.

The Spitfire was better in air-to-air combat than its Axis counterparts, at least early in the war. I’d like to give the British a separate, defensive bonus for air-to-air combat due to their radar tech, sector stations, and Ultra. However, this would add complexity to my combat system. And it’s not like the Allies need another advantage.

The points you made about offense and defense are well-taken. But to compensate for some of those defensive advantages you mentioned, bear in mind that the attacker often has the advantage of surprise. Consider the invasions of France (in 1940 and again in 1944). In the former, the defenders expected Germany to revert to its Schlieffen Plan, and reacted accordingly. In 1944, German military planners had expected an attack on Calais; but instead the Allies invaded Normandy. It’s true that the defending Axis soldiers physically present in the Normandy vicinity had the defensive advantages you described. The same cannot be said about the larger, stronger Axis force in Calais. In both cases (1940 and 1944) being on the attack allowed the attacker to choose some weak point in the defense, to throw overwhelming force at that weak point, to break through, and to thereby nullify the defensive advantages that the majority of the defending force would otherwise have had.

@Emperor_Taiki:

also about units having defence bonus’s. I dont think just becasue the base units do not have explict defensive or offensive advantages does not mean you shouldn’t have tech or other modifiers that are bias torwards defence. You would argee with me that in war defendes have many advatages over the attacker and that defence is much cheaper that offence.

I’m loath to adopt this change for two reasons:

• It adds extra complexity to the game.
• Defense was not necessarily better than offense.

It’s true that some areas of the world had natural defensive advantages. Italy was one such example, as Germany demonstrated after the fall of Mussolini. Parts of France were another. Leningrad and Stalingrad also come to mind due to the difficulties of urban warfare. It’s possible to build blockhouses in each of these areas.

Other theaters were better suited to offense. North Africa comes to mind, especially because of the ease with which one can use the Sahara desert to outflank one’s enemy to the south. Offensives on the German/Soviet front were also often effective, because the large, wide-open spaces made it comparatively easy to encircle an enemy army. Germany won a number of such encirclement victories in the summers of '41 and '42, just as the Soviet Union won such a victory at Stalingrad.

You may be tempted to point out that the Soviets used massive defensive installations at Kursk, and that these thwarted the German advance there. The Soviet defense was six layers deep, the Soviets had a 2:1 advantage or better in men and land units (such as artillery and tanks), and rough parity in planes. The reason why the Soviets’ defense was so effective was because the Kursk salient was a fairly obvious place for the Germans to attack. Knowing this, von Mannstein suggested an advance along the southern portion of the German-Soviet front, instead. Had his advice been followed, it’s likely the attack would have been successful, as were the German attacks in the summer of '41. But instead, Hitler chose to follow the advice of the majority of his General Staff: to go after the Kursk salient.

In summary:
Blockhouses = natural defensive advantages augmented by fortifications
Attack + bad die rolls = doing something stupid, like ignoring the advice of one of the best generals to have ever lived (von Mannstein)
Attack + neutral die rolls = A more normal battle along the German/Soviet front, which often involved the encirclement and destruction of large groups of defending soldiers.

@Emperor_Taiki:

more toughts

shouldn’t the Russians have the same light infantry rules as the Italians, you know, becasue of the purges

For Finalnd you could add the vyborg territory which incompasses the land ceded by Finland to the Soveits in the winter war. This terriotry is in A&A Europe and if you also make leningrad a sperate territory from Karlia if helps defend finland.
Once Finland has a second terriotry if would not need to also control Norway and the blatic states.

I would also think a third finish terriotry in northern finland would also add a bit of excitment to the game

Changes I’ve made to the main rules set:

• London’s value has been decreased by three, with that value going to Africa instead.
• Britain’s “Ultra + radar” tech has been renamed “Spitfire,” because it works on both offense and defense.

Changes I’ve made to the minor nations variant:

• The Italians’ “Rebuild the Roman Empire” tech has been eliminated
• Italy receives three transports in the Mediterranean.
• The “North Finland” Territory has been created

Changes I’m contemplating:

• Adding in territories like Vyborg, as well as the African and Mediterranean territories you mentioned

The scenario begins in the spring of 1942. While Soviet infantry fought poorly early in the war, by the spring of ‘42 they were fighting quite well. Not as well as the German infantry (on a man-for-man basis) but that was more a case of Germany fighting well than of the Soviets fighting badly. Witness the Soviet performance in the undeclared war between itself and Japan, or the Soviets’ invasion of Manchuria in 1945. The latter was seen by both sides as a prelude to any would-be Soviet invasion of Japan itself. Japanese resistance collapsed in the face of the Soviet onslaught.

@Emperor_Taiki:

another note, i think the Finnish winter war and molotav cocktail ability and the UK’s ultra+radar tech should only apply when they are defending becasue it just does not make sence if it helps them when they are attacking. and the ultra+radar should only wen their are air bases in the terriotry

I agree–especially with regard to the British Ultra + Radar tech. (One could argue that Finnish soldiers could still use Molotov cocktails even when on offense.) However, my rules set does not allow units to have different values for offense and defense. Maybe I should rename the British tech “Spitfire.”

@Emperor_Taiki:

And Italy not being able to move into western europe and fight with german troops in the soveit union is a weird rule  seeing as many Italians were garrisoned at the beaches of Normandy in static divisions and even more Italians fought in the Soveit Union with Germany and other allies

Okay . . . I may have more thinking to do there. (The optional rules variant with Italy et al is a relatively recent addition to the rules set.) My fear was that, without that rule in place, all Italian infantry would simply be thrown away as cannon fodder against the Soviet Union or other Allies. Which would not have been historically accurate; as Italy’s main focus was on North Africa and its war against Britain. But you’re correct to say that some Italians did, in fact, serve on the eastern front.

Probably the best way to fix this problem is to give Italy three transports in the Mediterranean, perhaps to make Africa and the Middle East a little more valuable, and to ensure that few if any non-Italian Axis transports are in the Mediterranean. That would likely tempt the Axis player into sending most of his Italian strength into Africa.

@Emperor:

my suggestion is to not add new major resources that become just as important or replace IPCs like metal, coal, and oil. Becasue then you have to have a chart that represent industrial capacity with wierd formuals nobody likes.

I agree, which is why I haven’t added them. And I’m very unlikely to add them in the future, as much as I’m tempted to do so. Too much complexity will ruin any otherwise good rules set.