dgaad

Each turn means each turn by each side. Before you take your next turn, the Axis gets a turn. Even in summer, you get to move every two weeks at a maximum.

No mind.

EB (if he ever comes back) and others : As many of you know, a number of the "heated discussions" took place between EB and myself. I live in the US and consider myself a "Westerner". I've had many conversations with others here about the relative contribution of the Soviet Union to the victory in Europe. It is true that the majority of Americans are not fully aware of the decisive contributions of the Soviet Union to the defeat of Germany and Hitler, and I have vociferously corrected them -- with historical facts that they are simply not aware of. My favorite type of wargames to play are in fact sims of the Barbarossa campaign in its entirety. I always play the Russians. I always like to win. I always know its possible to do this with the Russians because of the enormous sacrifices of the Russian and Soviet peoples, who were willing to bear any burden to achieve victory. I've spent probably more than half of all the reading and research I've done in my life on the German-Soviet conflict. I've never met in person, frankly, any American who knows more about the Soviet contribution to the war in Europe than myself. I don't say these things to flatter myself or posture. I say it to make the following very important point : What EB said was not as important as the APPROACH he took It was his approach to the issues that was offensive. Instead of acknowledging the US and Allied contribution to the war, he called the US and Britain and other allies "cowards" and "cowardly democracies". Its one thing to talk about the crimes of Stalin, but to raise such a man to the position of divine infallibility is a mistake that should be made with NO politicians, particularly that one. Finally, EB personally attacked me and several other people on this board when we riposted against his offensive approach, not the least of which was the forum administrator. This is indicative of a closed and bitter mind, and it seems inevitable to me that such a mind would come to dislike the preference for open and CIVIL debate. You can't argue history with ideologies and expect acquiesence or respect. Stalinism (and any other type of "ism") is an ideology. Stalinism justifes mass murder of civilians as necessary to protect or strengthen the government, just like Fascism justifies mass murder. EB sees the entire history of the WW2 conflict in ideological terms, and to such a person it is not capable of critical historical analysis. That is tragic, but only for that type of person. A final note : its difficult for anyone in any country to hear someone say that their country is "cowardly", and simply bear that in mute silence. I have three direct relatives who fought in WW2, and I am fortunate to say that they all survived the conflict. They lost many of their friends however. The relatives of those men would have far less patience than someone like me. I would advise EB to drop his bias for one week, and read a WESTERN work on the Battle of Guadalcanal, or the Battle of Midway, or the Battle of the Bulge. If he can still call every other nation but the Soviet Union cowards after that, then he is truly pitiable.

No one on this board ever said that the contribution of the Soviet Union to the victory of all the Allied powers was not the decisive fact of the war in *europe*. EB's focus was well beyond that, however. In Game terms, I don't feel that the Soviet Union needs to be beefed up so much as the Germans need to be "beefed down". The major problem with game balance derives from Germany simply getting way too many MPPs from looting. This immediate economic infusion is what allows the Germans to have 5-10 airfleets in mid-1941, a level of combat power in the game which is in no way related to the ratio of relative combat effectiveness between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army. All told, in the year between September, 1939 and September 1940 the Germans get looting MPPs which exceed an entire year's worth of "natural" German production. This is *in addition* to the extra MPPs they get from takeover of conquered nation's factories and resources. I said this a long time ago : Looting as it is implemented in this game is a BAD concept. The various surrenders of nations to Germany in 1939-1941 did NOT vastly increase the economic power of Germany as it does in SC. The economic benefits to Germany from the surrender of these countries was, in the context of German economy, very modest and spread out over time. This is not to say the Germans weren't rapacious and brutal in their economic exploitation and outright thefts, they were. But this type of economic activity really doesn't add much to a nation's warmaking power. IMHO the entire Looting concept needs revision, if not scrapping altogether. The way that factory and resource hexes produce for the MPP pool of a conqueror is just about the level of economic benefits Germany received, at the scale of this game that's about all that's appropriate. Side note : it would be nice if the Campaign editor had ways to edit countries that were neutral, make countries neutral that are currently active, and ALSO if we could edit the "formula" for looting. If I could edit it, I would take it down to 1 or 2 turns worth of production of the conquered country as an immediate benefit, at best. [ October 25, 2002, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

I tend to agree here. The performance of German infantry in terms of casualty ratio during the years 1939-1942 was a definite grade above all other infantry-based units. There were a number of reasons for this, some doctrine based, some cultural, some based on the Nazi educational and social orientation. William Shirer (an American in France in 1940) made a number of observations on the differences, and he noted the stark contrast between "Hollow-chested" British troops, who had spent the prewar years in dusty coal towns getting little exercise, with the robust Germans, who had spent most of their youth in vigorous outdoor activities sponsored by the Nazi state. I think that keeping the experience bonus limited to the Army units keeps the game balanced, and reflects not only these various phenomenae, but also the traditions of the German junior officer corps which encouraged initiative. The corps units would represent the less trained parts of the Wehrmacht, who had only recently been built up or mobilized earlier in 1939, while the Armies represent the core of the old divisions (1-35).

I have received your comments by email as well. I like many of the suggestions here. Let me make a few comments. 1. I'd like the "Historicity Mod" to be a centralized general SC community agreement that, all things being equal, this is the mod they prefer to use for balanced play. Everyone can of course create their own mod, but it would be good if the SC community had at least one Mod that everyone generally agreed was balanced, if not even interesting and more historical. You may disagree with some of the decisions in the Historicity mod, but as long as the community as a whole feels its a good and historically representative mod, on balance, then we all have common ground for PBEM games. 2. War Mobilization Bonuses. These are not going to drop. I understand the idea of dropping them in favor of giving more research, etc., but I want players to have some flexibility at start and MPPs are the basic flexible currency. If you drop the WMB in favor of an additional research point, remember that those points can be "recalled" for 125 points apiece anyway. Half a dozen of one, six of the other. In this case, I'd like to give the player the raw material to make the decision, rather than force a decision on him / her. 2. Too much risk of a "decisive" naval engagement if you reduce the naval units on the map. There was little risk of this type of thing. I understand the concern with clutter, etc., but in the case of naval units I think we can live with it. As to Martinov's other ideas, some of them will be incorporated directly into the next version of Historicity. In particular, adding Canada at start and Iraq at start for the CW. Some of the other changes I will make will also incorporate the suggestions of Bill and Armenian Boy. Anyway, lets keep the juices flowing, this is good schtuff.

I'd really like to know from some of the players how the sub warfare pans out in the Historicity mod. In that mod, the Germans start off with L-2 subs and strength 12 sub fleets. If they stay in the NW corner of the board, any attempt by the British to find and engage them would be disastrous because of the low supply ratings the British ships would have at the point of contact. If of course the subs venture close to Britain the equation changes. With these changes in that mod, it seems to me the Germans have a much better chance of conducting an effective sub warfare campaign, particularly after France is axis-occupied and Brest and Bordeaux become available for sub replenishment.

I chose 450 MPPS as approximately one half the looting value of the US. If you read about the homefront in early 1942, one could see that this is a fairly conservative value. But, I will think about it. Not a bad idea with respect to Italy. However, as I've said, Mussolini did not expect to be fighting a real war in 1940, he jumped in when he thought it was about to end, so he could horn in on the "peace settlement". However, I will give it some thought. Even a leader as stupid as Mussolini would mobilize some economic reserves in this situation. Yes, I am aware of some of the gamey tactics that the French can use. As to the tech ratings and the DCR unit, gameplay feedback and suggestions are always appreciated and I will consider it. Okay, with respect to research chits, if you give a research chit to a nation, they can use them anywhere. The balance problem in the game has to do with the Germans researching jet engine and lr aircraft, so I don't think this is a good idea. I generally share your reservations about giving away free experience. However, the historical performance of German infantry was so far and away above any other nation in the early period of the war, it is a strategic consideration imho. Most of this experience will be lost the first time the Germans are checked in a campaign (presumeably, Russia). I think the idea of Britain getting one research chit is worthwhile, after all they had been essentially preparing for war since March 1939, and they certainly did have a crypto advantage by war outbreak. The freebie units are largely useless until they can be built up, which usually won't happen until mid-1940, by which time France should be gone. The experience of BEF is almost totally dissipated if the UK player reinforces the unit to full strength. The war mob bonus is a balancing issue imho. I'd like some more pbem play feedback on these and other issues. Food for thought. I'm leery of giving the Russians too much "unearned" research off at the start because the historical record up to June 22, 1941 simply doesn't justify it. Stalin and the USSR were caught flat footed and totally unprepared for the attack, and had given numerous orders to agencies and the Red army to completely ignore the obvious signals that Germany was preparing to attack. They weren't gearing up any kind of research program above normal or one which reaches a strategic consideration at this game scale, imho (Stalinsts please don't try to "correct" my opinion here, I'm well aware of the countervailingn opinion of the historical record). Thanks much.

Unfortunately I don't have a high degree of control over AI behavior. The mod is primarily directed at ALLIED help in AI games, and BALANCE for PBEM games. In PBEM games, the addition of the tank / wavell group to Africa means the Axis will have a constant drain on resources from the Med if the CW player is aggressive down there. This should balance out the airpower express of the Germans in 1941/42

I don't understand the first part. But, thanks. Hvar huomentaa.

Acambria : do a search on these forums for the user EB. You can read all of his "greatest hits." Learn this : EB *knows* what Stalin did. The problem is . . . he thinks Stalin was right and moral. You will therefore never teach him anything, and *he* will never learn anything. If he were here saying the same thing about Hitler, he would be banned by now.

See, you have to read things very carefully to fully understand who you are dealing with here. The US has Billions of Dollars worth of worthless bonds from the Tsarist regime. They are sold as collectors items here in the US. NY Bankers aren't interested in hurting any country. They were interested in collecting the money owed to them, of which the bonds were the instrument. They knew that Communist Russia certainly wouldn't pay those bonds, and they didn't and they haven't. The bonds remain worthless to this day. Historians could, and have, made the argument that the intervention of the West was almost exclusively motivated by such financial concerns, as all the Western powers had lent Russia enormous sums of money during WW1, and for many years before WW1. Most of it, if not all of it, was never paid back. This experience reverberates to this day. Russia today complains about the lack of investment in Russia by the West. They largely don't understand that the West has a very long financial memory. The investment houses say, yes we know there is tremendous untapped potential in Russia, that its a beautiful land with many resources and capable people, but the last time we invested there, we lost everything. What assurances can be given? Just imagine if these bankers met someone like EB, who justifies the Famine, the Purge, the slaughters, the Gulag, the forced migrations and deportations, the Non-Aggression pact with Hitler, and so on and so forth, all as justified. This type of thinking would scare the beejeezus out of any sane person, especially a banker. Hence : investment limited to fast food chains and a few mega-retail outlets. Even those aren't safe, so the cycle begins again.

Don't ever play a PBEM game with "Historical" entries. Random works much better, and obviates these type of gamey strategies.

Or a modified Barbarossa scenario in which the Allies are out of the war. Lets see how the Russkies do then.

As it stands right now, using reinforcements is one half the cost of creating a new unit. I don't see any way around this. If you make them more expensive, it then becomes a distinction without a difference. Taking your statement, I think the situation of being able to "replace all your forces" and "still have enough left over for new units and research" is exactly the way things should be. If you have enough to replace all your units, its because the enemy simply didn't do enough damage across the board. WW2 has been called the "Ultimate War of Attrition" by people much more erudite on the topic than myself. The key to winning in the game, economically, is NOT the reduction of units, but the ELMINATION of them. Even the German economy in 1942, with production of 500+ MPPs, could not stand the ELIMINATION of 2-3 armies per turn I tend to agree that in most games on even this scale, there ought to be some limits on the amount of various types of units; limits that reflect historical capacity. The phenom of the Germans building airfleet after airfleet is indeed ahistorical because with the relatively limited production of oil in continental europe, this number of aircraft simply could not be flown. I don't think, however, that the amount of armies or reinforcements used reaches ahistoricity in this game, because of the brake put on production and reinforcement by MPPs. Virtually every nation did create or reinforce to the general extent they do in the game. If I had a quarrel, it would be with the construction and use of more specialized units like airfleets that needed a particular, and relatively rare, resource.

Its not a patch, its a mod. We are limited by the capabilities of the Campaign editor. The editor does not allow any change to map objects (such as, for example, creating a "Mannerheim Line"). Only nations that are "active" at the start of the scenario can have changes made to starting forces and locations.

Unfortunately the campaign editor does not permit this kind of change. On a side note, no matter how well edited a campaign may be, there will always be someone willing to engage in gamey tactics. [ October 24, 2002, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

* [ October 24, 2002, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

I agree with the assessment of Rokossovsky as a military leader. Its important to note that this officer was nearly annihilated in the Purge, as so many of his compatriots actually were murdered on equally baseless charges. For those of you unfamiliar with the Crimes of Stalin, I urge you to read, as a start, the speech given to the 20th Party Congress which outlines in great detail the nature of Stalin's crimes against humanity, which can be found here. 20th Party Congress

Yet another person on this board now becomes familiar with the EB, unmasked.

Very funny stuff guys.

Its hard to keep track of the latest version of the spelling of Russian towns, since they changed so often, and usually with the current political wind. Tsarytsin---->Stalingrad---->Volgograd St.Petersburg---->Leningrad---->St.Petersburg Yousovka---->Donetsk---->Stalino---->Donetsk etc. And thats just in the last 90 years.

Bill : Thanks for the help. I suppose I should add the following qualifier to the Mod : *Warning : in the Stalinist view of history, this mod is a "fantasy scenario". Anyway, Bill, keep me informed on your playtest. Also I put together an even more extensive set of changes in the "Historicity Mod" 1.1. [ October 24, 2002, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

I think all the Italian ships should have a name that starts with Ciao.