Ivanov

The whole point of playing a mirror is to give equal chances to both players and avoid complains about the lack of balace in the scenarios. We have started 3 days ago without even discussing the scoring system, so everything can be still fixed. Please make an effort, elaborate more your system and send it to Kommandant who will then forward our proposals to the participants, as not everyone taking part is this competition has an forum account.

Let me outline the advantages of my system: 1. It's fair and gives equal chances to both players of the mirror match. 2. It encourages competitiveness and sportmanship by putting pressure on the players and making surrender a certain way to lose the whole match. 3. It recreates the real life conditions and historical atmosphere when the commanders were pressured to achiveve the victory quickly and with the samllest possible number of casualties. If someone has a different idea, please send it to Kommandant and we will vote, which system suits you best.

If someone surrenderes, then it should be like a major vicory for the opponent and if the the surrendering player achieves also a major victory playing the stronger side, then the player who didn't give up should be a victor of the whole match and get one point in the league and the defeated player zero points. This system should motivate people to play until the end instead of surrendering. I think speed should be one of the criteria, because achieving victory quickly was always important for the generals. We could also look, who achieved the victory and took smaller casualties in the process ( a criteria even more important during the war ).

I'v never liked the current system and I have sent a proposal with a new scoring system to Kommandant and he is supposed to send it to everyone and we will vote it. Basically the idea is that a mirror match will have only one result, because as you mentioned due to the lack of balance there is no point in counting defeats when you play weaker side. If you play a mirror, and both players win when they play the stronger side ( e.g Entente in Race to the Sea or Germans in Keiserschlacht ), then the winner of the whole match is the one who scored a higher victory or achieved it faster. Anyway this is not my original idea but that's how the mirror match is suppoesed to work. That's why you play a mirror - it guarantees that both players have exactly, perfectly equal chances. The current scoring system would maybe work for some sport competition, where you have an equal number of players in both teams, one filed and one ball, but no for complex scenarios, where there are too many factors involved and it's impossible to provide both sides with equal chances. I've never completed Gallipoli but I have an impression that if Turks play it resonably well, then the Entente has no chances to win due to the supply.

We will be voting an new scoring system. Just wait for an e-mail regarding this.

Agreed - it happened to me also few times, when I was trying to change HQ attachments, that I moved the HQ that was supposed to stay place. Anyway Glabro - let's keep the posts about the tournament in the Tournament thread cause we may miss something.

Nicely done! That's what I call commitement to the cause.

I am not so sure if your can get an sleep during the night given your SC2 record;) This thing is serious :eek:

All turns sent. So far I got a feedback from Ludi and Mancspartan ( who couldn't read my file and probably will need to upgrade his game to 1.03 ). I haven't heard anything from Shaun and Kuderian, so if you read this guys, could you please confirm that you have received my e-mails? And be proud to form a part of the Somme League!

Kommandant - how many players from the league get to the play-off's' One or two?

These are mirror matches but don't worry - we have more than one month to finish the first phase. You won't need more than 20 min to play both sides of one match. I prefer it to take longer than to lose due to the bad luck because I got Germans in Race To The Sea;)

I don't have a reliabe data regarding this, but for example Wikipedia says something about 15% of the Allied resources dovoted to the Pacific Theatre Of War. Anyway, there is no need for the scenario to be so much accurate - it just needs to be well balanced. If the US industrial production could reach 600-700MMP's that would be fine.

Yes, you have to play your turn as Germans in Keiserschlacht and send it back to me saved as: Mancspartan_Ivanov_01. My turn as Germans would be Ivanov_Mancspartan_01. As the game progresses you'll just need to change the number at the end of the saved file. That's an info for those who don't know how the mirror match works. So Mancspartan and everyone from my league - expect a turn tonigh:) Good luck!

I just think that the maximum I can play is one turn per day ( with each player from my league ), but for example Race To The Sea scenario, has more than 30 turns, so if someone won't surrender before this time, then there is no way I can finish it in one month. There are two options: 1. We extend the timeline on the first phase ( better one ) 2. On 31st of Dec we send unfinished mateches to the referee so he can choose the winner.

I have received the e-mail and things look really cool. I'm impressed the way you organized it guys. I'm just wondering if 30 days will be enough to complete the first phase? Christmas holidays in the old country are on the way...

Good point, that was probably the idea and the current balance is a result of a assumption, that the Axis as the attacker, will always have more difficult task to acomplish than the Allies. Right now however, playing the Allies requires more experience and leaves much less space for an error, that playing the Axis with their lavish MMP's output. Based on a historical data, this is how an accurate comparison of the idustrial capacity between the Allies and the Axis would look like: YEAR 1941 Axis: Germany 412 MMP, Italy 144 MMP, Japan 196 MMP = 752 MMP Allies: Britain 344 MMP, USSR 359 MMP, USA 1094MMP = 1797 MMP YEAR 1944 Axis: Germany 437 MMP, Italy 137 MMP, Japan 189 MMP = 763 MMP Allies: Britain 346 MMP, USSR 495 MMP, USA 1499 MMP = 2340 MMP So as we see, the industrial superiority of the Allies was at any stage of the conflict absolutely crushing. If Barbarossa accomplished it's goals, then by 1944 the German production would be higher and the Soviet lower than historicaly at this time, but even if Germany managed to absorb all the Soviet production ( that was impossible in a real life but it is accteptable for the purpose of the game ), then the industrial output of the US, would be still higher than the German one. The bottom line is - the scenario does not need to be so much historically accurate, but some changes in the balance have to be made if we want to make it simply more playable.

Hi Ludi Thanks for your post. It brings us smoothly to the main subject of this thread, that is the balance or rather imbalance of the SOE campaign. I like the idea of an American DE concerning expansion of the industrial production in case USSR suffers some dramatic setbacks, that may lead to German victory in Russia. Anyway, it seems that USSR is too easy prey for Wehrmach, as the Reich industrial base is to too big and that there are too few Soviet units at the beginning of Barbarossa. These, are once again, the main areas that probably would need some further tweaking.

Really cool!

That sounds really good

It’s hard for me to imagine a counter strike of Franco/British “mobile reserves” against the German panzer spearhead, given the Byzantine command structure and WWI tactical doctrine of the Allied armies. The French army of 1940 wasn’t the same as for example the Red Army from the time of Battle of Kursk. I don’t think that the Soviet – German alliance could continue it’s existence long time after the fall of France. Apart from the ideological madness of Hitler, he also believed that in order to be able to compete with Britain and USA, it was essential to create a German Grossraum ( economic zone stretching from the Atlantic to the Uralus ) at the expense of Soviet Union. Stalin actually made some advances towards Germany after the fall of France regarding further division of the spheres of influence in Romania, Turkey and Finland. Those conditions were unacceptable for Hitler and convinced him that the war with Soviet Union was inevitable.

Another interesting idea "outside the box", however I'm struggling to imagine how it should be implemented practically. From the other hand, I'm not sure if Fall Gelb should be left to a chance like for example the Zimmerman Telegram DE. It was a big gamble but it could be also explained in terms of crude materialism of a military art: "Manstein's touchstone was the classic Napoleonic equation: achieve success by concentrating a greater weight of the force than the enemy at a single point. (...) Since Germany had no overall superiority, local superiority could be only achieved through the greatest possible concentration and by the greatest possible suprise. It was the exquisite realization of these classic principles of operational doctrine,not superior equipment or morale, that explains the success of theBlitzkrieg.The crucial diversion was created by Army Group B with its attack into Holland and northern Belgium. This part of the operation involved only 29 German divisions. But it attracted the attention of no fewer than 57 Allied divisions, amongst them the cream of the French and British armies. To the south, along the whole exposed length of the Rhine valley, the Germans deployed only 19 second-rate units, whilst the French kept 36 divisions entombed in the massive concrete defences of the Maginot Line. On the flanks, therefore, the Germans stretched the odds against themselves, to nearly 2:1. In the Ardennes, this enabled them to concentrate no less than 45 crack divisions, against a Franco-Belgian defensive screen of only 18 second-rate units. Though they were inferior across the entire length of the line, consistent planning allowed the Germans at the point of attack to achieve a ratio in their favour of almost 3:1. In this sense, the German victory does not overturn the principle that numbers are decisive. It simply confirms the point that,in an evenly balanced situation, the material superiority necessary to achieving a decisive breakthrough can only be attained by maximum concentration of force. Furthermore, since the enemy cannot be assumed to be passive, this advantage can only be be sustained by strategic deception and maximum speed of manoeuvre. (...) The victory of May 1940 is not a mysterious event explicable only in terms of the uncanny elan of the German army and the unwillingness of the French to fight. The odds facing Germany were not good. But they were not so bad that they could not be overcome by superior planning and manoeuvre". Adam Tooze "The Wages Of Destruction"

In the curenrt patch the Siberians are transfered to Europe automatically the latest in May of 1942. The units appear, because by then Stalin knows that there is no real threat from the Japanese. That would be fine for me if the Siberians went to the West around this time. Automatic tech upgrades? I'm not sure. If USSR stays unmolested for longer, it means more possible MMPs to spent on the research without for example the necessity of rebuilding units damaged by the combat. Of course the Soviet mobilization should rise accordingly, increasing the production but not leading to the Soviet DOW too early.

I am quite averse to strenghtening of the French Army in the scenario, because that would probably totaly change the early balance in favour of the Allies and swing the focal point of the whole campaign to the German-French conflict, while I'd prefer to focus on Germay-flanking powers one. It's is a pity though that as you mentioned, due to the present supply model, it's impossible to cut off the Allied armies in the North and there had to be some shortcuts in a way the French weakness is currently represented. I like the idea of a DE about deployment of the BEF forces to France ( could be something simmilar to the WWI one ). The main point that has to be stressed, is a need to delay the unprovoked Soviet war entry until the mid 1942. That could give some more of a free hand to the Axis, but on the other hand would need to be offset by a possibility of a war declaration by Stalin against the neutral countries and maybe earlier US entry, as the German focus on the Med and the Atlantic sphere would probably seriously get on the nerves of Uncle Sam.

The national morale seems to be quite irrelevant in the SOE campaign. For example in my game Soviet Union lost Moscow, Leningrad, all the Western Republics and more than 100 units, but it's NM morale value stood firmly at 92%. The NM feature is incorporated into the scenario because it's a crucial for the Great War system, but if such a major setbacks like mentioned above can barely affect it, than what's the point in having it at all? I mean the NM is essencial to the Polish and French surrenderes, but without the NM feature, the capture of the capitals would be probably sufficient to complete the conquest. In case of Germany, Britain or USSR the NM does not play any signinficant role at all.

Last time I have attacked through the Belgium and the Ardenes, but it didn't matter because I got to the Paris almost unopposed and ran there into two lines of French units concentrated around the capital:) The myth that the Allies that could overrun German defences in the West in 1939 is especially prevailing in Poland. In my oppinion in the long run, Germans would be able to complete Fall Weiss anyway and then beat the French, due to their military superiority. So overrunning some border defences wouldn't change much in the big picture.