Jump to content

Minors & Majors in Gold


Recommended Posts

I have recently acquired Gold so it is possible that the first point in this post has been addressed but it is not mentioned in the documentation.

I am interested to know whether the relationship between majors has been adjusted to reflect the new status of France and Italy. For example when these were minors they could share research with their major partner, is this still the case?

It would actually be a good option if it were possible to share research between cooperating majors. In reality of course the UK did use a load of US equipment (its carrier air, Sherman tanks etc) as well as pooling research on the A Bomb so it would be correct historically.

My second question is whether creating two new majors has proved easy and whether there could be more? It would for example be an interesting game variation if the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was actually treated as if it was an amalgum rather than a single entity. One possibility that this would enable is that the SU could be divided into two parts West and East. Then Arctic supply convoys heading into the NW could only be used to create units in the W and similarly for the East (e.g. a Persian or Vladivostok route). It was historically the case that the Arctic convoys provided units to be used in the battles for Moscow whilst the Persian convoys supplied the battles for Stalingrad. The use of two entities for the SU would make the movement of capitals to some extent superfluous and give the possibility of a negotiated peace event. It was Hitler's intention to stop at the so called AA Line, Archangel to Astrakhan so this could be the West East boundary.

Regards

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new majors don't share research and actually no majors share research in this way but do have the benefits of cooperative status that allow them to operate within each others territories and share HQ supply etc.

There could be more majors added in the future but it is a bit of work as it would require some code changes as well as a rethink of the interface design but since we already did that to get up to 8 majors in WWI we just reused the idea for GOLD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Hubert

Thank you for your reply. It seems to me that there is a problem with France. If it cannot do any sensible research whilst it is conquered and is not allowed access to other Allied technology for its forces once it has been liberated, then they are just cannon fodder. In reality its armed forces were given some US technology such as anti-tank weapons, tanks etc.

I have not seen any events that are connected with research but it would be appropriate and interesting from a game play perspective if the Allied player were given random periodic choices (e.g. every 6 months or so) as to which technology might now be released to the French or amongst other cooperative Allies. Thus the player might need to choose whether to release infantry or armoured tech, modern aircraft or modernised ships (Richelieu was refitted in a US Navy yard with improved AA etc in early 1943). Clearly the decisions on which tech to share would relate to the current relative levels so the decision might ideally be rather open ended but I would settle for scripted if that were easier to implement. I guess the same might also apply to the Italians and Germans - the Germans did try to exchange technology with the Japanese via U Boat ferried material but not much came of that. However, if for example Axis forces gained a land border with each other as a result of conquering USSR then perhaps a technology exchange event ought to be some further bonus to reward this achievement.

Regards

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi mcaryf1 ^^,

- I'm not sure it'd be easy to simulate tech sharing like that, there were many political issues about it. And if I understand well, when France collapses, it produces North Africa Vichy minors so if they swing back to ally you can still produce up to date units for free french. De Gaulle had to pull srings everywhere to keep a share of the cake for France.Free french forces were usually pushed aside and diverted towards "secondary" fronts (where they made a point to wreak havoc of course :D ).

- I remember reading somewhere that for a matter of "national pride" the Duce absolutely refused to let italian factories produce german tanks or use german blueprints to make similar models though many people (from army and industry) wanted to have something like panzer Mk IV to keep allies at bay on the southern front. Seems the M13/40 and other italian tanks were more iron graves than steel weapons :( .

- Also, germans diverted some of their production to equip minor allies but it was never the most up to date equipment and only in small numbers. Also, unlike Italy, Finland was asking for anything germans could spare, especially panzerfaust and panzerjaeger when they saw how efficient they were :eek: .

- All in all, maybe an event like: would you like to refit french forces at the cost of xx MPPs Y/N. Good side: they come in quicker, bad side: they are owned by France :D .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Strategiclayabout

I agree that tech sharing was not automatic or universal between Allies. However, the French 2nd Armoured Div under Gen Leclerc was entirely equipped with Shermans when it fought in Normandy.

My suggestion was that it might be done for a few specific techs by means of some type of Decision Event.

The thing is that Allied minors such as Canada do get to share technology so it seems strange that moving France from being a minor to a major actually has a serious downside for her capability. I guess if I care that much about it I could always make France a minor again but then I have worked in Paris and I know quite a number of French people and they might take exception to that!

Regards

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...