Shaka of Carthage Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 There was a suggestion by JerseyJohn in giving Sweden to the Axis and Iraq to the Allies, in the Neutral Nations as Economic Allies topic. Well, I tried it. But there is a problem with it, wondering if any of you have ideas on how to fix it. If Axis gets Sweden, the Sweden/Norway combination will give the Axis player 126 MPPs. Sweden becomes a 10 point nation, not 8, and once you conquer Norway, it will increase to a 8 point nation (since it is connected to Sweden). Thats as much as Germany starts off with! This is also why Sweden doesn't stand a chance to remain neutral. Norway when captured is worth 35 MPPs. Sweden when captured will increase those Norway MPPs to 56, and add its own MPPs for a total of 112 MPPs. And you get the plunder from those nations. This is just too good to pass up. Any wonder why Sweden doesn't survive as a neutral? Iraq going to the Allies is only worth 56 MPPs to them (until Russia enters, then its 80). Since we can't create an "event", I assumed the Iraq Pro-Axis coup of '41 occurred in '39. Iraq starts the campaign as Axis, but has no units. I gave the Brits a weak Corp near Iraq, so on its first turn it can take Iraq and receive plunder. Even so, this doesn't make up for the Sweden/Norway combination. Thanks Bill Macon for the correct Iraq numbers. Any ideas on how to solve it? [ March 09, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Only way I can see this going down is if both players force a Neutrality upon Spain unless the SeaLion event occurs. Seeing that it would be hard for Hitler to invade his former buddies Franco's land. Give the Brits Portagul too. Brazil was a Allied supporter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Sweden could simply be a hands-off country as a house rule. There is the modifier for US entry to think about. And I believe Finland's entry is adversely affected by Germany attacking Sweden, but this isn't documented and isn't clear. If it isn't, and Hubert could clarify this, then US and Finnish entry could both be adjusted to make the Swedish gambit a bit more risky than it is. Btw, Iraq is actually worth 56 and then 80 after Russia enters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arby Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage: Any ideas on how to solve it? Yeah, a couple. First, penalize the Germans more heavily for doing it: invading Sweden reduces the likelihood of the Axis minors joining up, and substantially increases the likelihood of the US entering the war. Right now, I think it increases US WE by 15%. Make it 30%, and you might even wind up with a situation where the US enters the war before the Soviets do. Second, reward the Germans for not doing so. A while back, I'd suggested "variable events" for SC2, random political or military events that might or might not occur in a particular game. (To flesh that out a bit, I'd have 10 military and 10 diplomatic events for each side, with 1 of each occurring in every game.) One of the diplomatic events might be, sometime between mid-1940 and mid-1941, the German getting all of Sweden's MPP's. I'm not sure that would do it. 126 MPP's is an awful lot. Then again, if you knew that going after that would bring America into the war about 4 turns sooner, and cost you the 130 MPP's you get from the minors for a couple or three turns, plus you had a 10% chance of gettng 60 MPP's without risking any of that, it would at least give you something to seriously ponder when deciding whether to invade Sweden. Which is more than you can now; right now, it's a no-brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Didn't somebody make a scenario giving the Germans the Swedish mines, while leaving the rest of the country neutral? That would be the best solution (for SC2, where any scenario designer anomalies in this situation can be rectified). John DiFool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Shaka Thanks for looking into the idea. If the only two nations added art Sweden and Iraq then imbalances will develop, as you say. I do it the following war: The Allies get Iraq, Ireland and Portugal. . The Axis gets Sweden. ,without house rules, it's free to use the Swedes to invade Norway if they want to. I've tried this allignment playing the Axis against the AI. If anyone wants to play either side against me via PBEM I'd enjoy the game very much. In the game vs. the AI, everything goes on schedule through the Fall of France. I slip a low rated German HQ into Sweden and aid them with luftflottes in Northern Denmark. Oslo falls and the two Swedish amies garrison Bergen and Oslo with their airfleet in the mountains near Bergen so it won't be a free bomber target. I keep the HQ on a nearby mountain between the two cities but this isn't really necessary, just to help reinforce and supply. The UK, having so many extra MPPs, is able to build enough troops after the fall of France to keep Germany from launching a quick Sea Lion. Both sides have enough spare MPPs to buy research and also pursue their strategic plans: Britain can buy bombers and Germany buy a few U-boats in addition to the ground and air units it will need for Barbarossa. As I've said from the start, this scenario is only an experiment and nothing more, but I felt the MPP balance would pretty much simulate some of the neutral nation ideas we were discussing. The good part about these countries is the Allied additions: Ireland, Portugal and Iraq, are not significant militarily. They aren't likely targets for Axis invasion and none of them have real armies. The Axis addition of Sweden provides a useful pair of armies with an airfleet but they're only useful against Norway. They don't throw the games strategy out of whack, what they do instead is help Germany procede on a more or less historical schedule through the Fall of France. Other than the reallignment of these neutrals the scenario I've made adopts ideas from the lineage of the dgaad-Martinov-Macon 1939 MODs. Primarily, I've added a small number of units to each side, an HQ (Gamelin) to France along with two full stregnth armies, the sixth near Brest and the seventh near Marsielle, full stregnth representing mobilization, and a partial French tank unit near Paris. The Germans receive the Sixth Army deployed a little east of the Rhine along with the Leeb HQ on their mine. These extra units help maintain balance, France does not fall during the winter through lack of units, instead she holds out doggedly. If Germany tries hitting Poland and the Low countries France is capable of driving them out of the place and the strategy backfires. As in real life, Germany has to prepare carefully for the Western offensive. Iraq's increase after Russian entry and the Scandivanian increase after adding Norway cancel each other out after the start of Barbarossa. House rules about Spain and Switzerland and whatever else aren't necessary. In this scenario both sides are strong enough to play their own game. Unless the German becomes extremely strong on land and sea with plenty of airfleets, he is not going to launch a successful Sea Lion. This restores the historical balance; Britain's extra stregnth cancels out Germany's unrealistic ability to transport ground units. If it's found the Allies still get the short end, which I'd find incredible, then I'd add Greece to the Allies in '39 with the house rule that the Greek armies can only be moved closer to Athens and are not allowed to leave the country. This, from the start would make it UK: gets Iraq, Greece, Ireland & Portugal . Axis gets Sweden. I suggest interest players give the idea a fling as it is without special provisions (unless they add Greece to the allies). Just add the countries using any standard 1939 scenario and play. Period. My scenario is tailored to my own tastes, it isn't for everyone. Bill's would probably appeal to most people and Hubert's is the standard. So, just call one of them up in the scenario editor, rename the file, add the countries to their sides and you have it. Those who want to try my scenario with these ideas should post it here and I'll E-mail it to them winzipped. --- Martinov made a scenario where the Swedish ore was assigned to Germany. I tried that, wanting to assign just one mine and be able to leave Irealand and Portugal neutral, but the updated scenario editor wouldn't allow me to reassign neutral territory. That was just as well with me as for my purposes I preferred it this way. In Martinov's scenario, I believe it's his 1939 MOD, Germany needs to conquer Norway to make use of those extra ore MPPs. Not a bad idea and a good reflection of reality. [ March 09, 2003, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 This is the original posting copied from Arby's Forum, Economics in SC2 Arby Great Forum, great contributions from everyone who's posted. As you probably know this Forum is actually the latest of several on this subject. You aren't so much repeating things as giving a fresh slant on the now familiar issues so I'm glad you're starting your own thread instead of continuing the others. I'll try to locant and link them here after I finish this posting. As an experiment I've made a 1939 scenario where various minor countries are assigned to one side or the other. Here are the how and whys followed by the wherefors with a summary. Before going any further, let me add a disclaimer, this is not offered as a scenario, as such, it's offered as a summation in game terms of the economic influences we've been discussing as expressed in MPPs. A side topic is aquiring Norway by it's April 1940 historical timeline (parts of it lingered till mid-June, but in game terms the country itself was conquered quickly) without upsetting Germany's schedule in France. Also, as is seen by a link in the Denmark-Norway Forum, Sweden was already very extensively tied in to Germany, allowing troops and supplies (under extreme German pressure) to bypass British positions using Swedish railroads within Sweden itself enroute to a stranded force outside Narvik. UK receives Iraq, Ireland and Portugal . Iraq was a British satelite both before, during and after the war. There was considerable anti-British/pro-Axis sentiment in the company, a failed coup was attempted, but in economic terms it was a de facto British colony. Ireland similar to Iraq. The southern half had recently received it's independance and, though their was widespread anti-British sentiment, to put it mildly, it's economy was solidly bound to Britain's. At any rate, there was little opportunity for them to trade with the Axis, even if they'd wanted to. Portugal Served as the conduit for trade between Axis occupied Europe and the UK and the neutral overseas world. This arrangement was beneficial to both sides. Germany received imports it wouldn't normally have had access to and Britain kept otherwise closed contacts alive. The good thing about putting these three nations in the Allied camp is they have no direct military effect on the play and provide the UK with much needed MPPs. In truth, the British economy in SC is far too small and this compensates nicely. Axis recieves Sweden Engulfed by Germany, especially after the fall of Norway, the Swiss economy was tied in and dependant upon Germany's. She had nowhere else to export to! By leaving the Swedish military in tact and bringing in a German HQ, the German invasion of Norway proceeds on schedule (perhaps a bit ahead, but not by very much as to do it properly, the invasion requires some preparation) and the two Swedish armies serve as Oslo and Bergen garrisons with the airfleet defending against otherwise gratis bomber raids. Like Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and Spain served as import/export lings for the Reich and the rest of the world. This scenario was only created as an experiment but I'm very satisfied with it. Britain builds units needed to defend against Sea Lion and is also able to purchase badly needed Research. Germany is discouraged from conducting an early Sea Lion and able to used the enhanced Scandinavian MPPs for both research and naval expansion/additional units for Barbarossa. link to Minor Neutrals as Economic Contributors Forum link to the Denmark-Norway Invasion Forum [ March 09, 2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted March 9, 2003 Author Share Posted March 9, 2003 JerseyJohn What are the extra MPPs from Ireland and Portugal? There is still a 70 MPP difference (ie Norway taken, but no Russian entry). In a standard game, the additional Swedish troops don't mean much long term. But while Sweden did provide volunteers to the German army, it in no way allowed its military to be used by Germany. And then there is the factor of the additional air unit. I'm wondering if Ireland shouldn't be "joined Axis" at the beginning, with no troops. That way all the British have to do is land a unit in Ireland, get control of the nation, but also get one turn of plunder. The Portugese option makes me nervous as an Axis player, since the Allies could have units there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Shaka Good points. The Swedish army invading Norway represents Axis forces, i. e. German troops and not specifically Swedes. It's true Sweden didn't send troops to aid the Axis, but they did allow movement of men and supplies through their territory by Germany to reinforce the otherwise hopelessly positioned German forces near Narvik -- the force, which had been intending to surrender itself to Swedish internment, received it's reinforcement and resupply and took Narvik instead! Sweden's Iron ore and everything else it had to export went only to Germany or Axis occupied areas. It was de facto Axis. In game terms the Swedish army cannot conquer Norway on it's own without German help; an HQ unit, otherwise they have 0 supplies on the Norwegian border, and German Luftflottes in northernmost Denmark softening Oslo. All this German effort is the equivalent of an invasion of Norway. If the Allies ever break into the Baltic and capture Stokholm, they'll receive plunder, which is one reason this is better than starting it off as Axis conquered. If you want to handle Ireland that way it's okay. With these countries added, however, the UK is in no way starved for MPPs. The idea of adding Ireland and Portugal is this: Sweden and Iraq balance with Portugal and Ireland providing a extra margin to the Allies. As I said, if this isn't enough just add Greece to the Allies. If UK doesn't send an HQ there the Greek armies are sitting in the mountains virtually unsupplied. They can't capture Albania on their own, so the house rule I suggested keeps them from over influencing the game. Possible House Rules: GREECE Greek Units cannot leave Greece till after Italy enters the Axis, but can move within the country. No allied ground or air unit, including an HQ is allowed to enter Greece untill Italy enters the Axis. No Allied ship is allowed to enter Athens Harbor till After Italy enters the Axis. A similar house rule regarding Portugal also takes care of the Spanish situation. No Allied Units landed in Portugal permitted unless either Spain or Portugal is attacked by the Axis. German units cannot invade Greece nor attack Greek units till Italy has entered the Axis. Portugal No Allied unit, including airfleets and HQs are allowed to enter Portugal till either Spain enters the war or Portugal is attacked by the Axis. [ March 09, 2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Okay! we all know that the Swedes were conspirators. They sold ballbearings and other things to the Germans when they most needed these things. Of course, they miss the good ole days of King Karl I suppose and being a Power in the World so perhaps they had some desire also to expand their borders... Switzerland was the home for a lot of German gold too, and secret deals... They start with two armies in this game get THAT. No Zurich either. Anyone ever thought of what fun it would've been use the Ole Neutral as a launching pad on France ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Liam If Switzerland has two armies and no city and France isn't that much of a problem going through the Low Countries, what's the point of invading Switzerland? Sure, you get some plunder but what it costs in taking the Swiss armies probably negates it. Strategically, it might pose a problem for the French, but if Germany can't beat France going through Belgium it means Germany itself is having some sort of problem! Anyway, the reason I posted that material about Sweden wasn't to knock the Swedes but to show that the only thing Sweden didn't do for Germany was send troops to help out! Not that they could be blamed very much, even if Germany didn't invade them they could have shut them down entirely from recieving imports. The same with Switzerland; everything had to move in and out of either German or Italian territior, or Vichy France and then through Franco's Spain, which wasn't much different from going through occupied territory. The reason for this forum's existence is to establish a good way of balancing MPPs by adding minor countries to the UK and Axis, avoiding things like Britain's having to invade Iraq, Portugal and Ireland, and Germany's having to invade Sweden. The reason? They were their MPP contributors even without being invaded. Switzerland doesn't fit into the conversation at all as it is not treated as an economic entity. [ March 10, 2003, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 No, you're correct that it doesn't fit in the discussion. Though truely perhaps Sweden's fate is including as well as Iraq's in the Whole Economically. As Switzerland was the bank for Germany now wasn't it? I know one thing, the US is represented by about 1/6th of it's size in this game. There is no Canada/South Africa or Australia. Well, considering these forces are facing the Japanese<which is far more than was allocated there> Perhaps there should just be overseas an bonus. Iraq was garaunteed to sell Britian what it needed... Sweden was like you say caught in the middle and made money off the Germans. Not to forget that much of Japan's Mighty War Machine was built soley from American Metal... SO I wouldn't point me finger to quickly at the Swedes either... We gave the Japanese a navy to begin with to enter WW1 on our side as well, and we forced modernization upon them with Commodore Mathew Perry in the previous century. So as life goes....Germany was a regular country. With a lot of industrial wealth<hard working people> Next to the United States and Russia I doubt had an equal. So in that period she spent most of her income on Arms, well a significant amount and she had great Leaders. The Leaders should be kept, the arms were a bit shakey in comparison with the Western Allies. They had plenty of tanks and aircraft too. More tanks than the Germans had. Though we could reflect it better by saying, by Winter of 1940 Germany hasn't conquored France...that she would have plenty of unstoppable reinforcements and solved her poor strategic situation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Poopsies. I meant there is no India, not Canada. Even though I'm not impressed with the size of the Royal Canadian Navy, which outnumbered the German's by the end of the war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Liam-Liam-Liam !!!!!! I'm not pointing fingers at anyone! What we are trying to do is add some of the normally un-used or ill-used minors to one side or the other in order to increase the MPP totals from the start and in a balanced manner. Britain, historically, didn't invade Ireland or Portugal though both countries were tied in with UK production, especially Portugal which was a link to occupied Europe. It didn't conquer Iraq, though it sent troops to quell a palace revolution, but Iraq was pro-British before and after the event. So instead of having the UK go turn after turn without MPPs I'm suggesting that those three nations be made UK Allies. Germany never invaded Sweden because she didn't have to, the countries economy was already completely tied in with the Axis. You yourself said the invasion of Norway in the game is unrealistically represented, so this is solved by allowing the Swedish Army & Airforce to do it. Germany sends a weak HQ to supply them on the Norway/Sweden border and supports them with two or three luftflottes in Northern Denmark and Norway is part of Germany by early Spring 1940. Switzerland is an entirely different matter. If Germany conquers it what does it gain, some meaningless plunder? If it's made an Axis Ally what does Germany get, two weak armies? None of it fits -- historically an Axis Switzerland would have been an economic disaster for -- GERMANY! We know that, have mentioned this innumerable times in the past, why are we going off topic here to keep mentioning it again? Yes, the United States sold scrap iron to Japan for decades before Pearl Harbor. It's a pity Teddy Roosevelt didn't have the foresight to see Japan's attack coming. Selling somebody scrap iron is not the same as building their fleet for them. Other countries sell scrap iron, if Japan hadn't bought it from the United States it sould have bought it from somewhere else. Regarding the present topic. I've been testing this scenario two different ways: one is to have it as first stated, with Sweden in the Axis and Iraq, Ireland and Portugal with the UK, and a second scenario in response to SHAKA's concern that the UK doesn't have enough in compensation. In the second scenario the UK adds Greece to Iraq, Ireland and, Portugal, providing the UK with an abundance of MPPs early in the war. House rule would be that the Greek Armies don't leave their country and neither Britain nor France send troops in till Italy has entered the war; I've increased Italy's MPPs at start to 400 (and the USSRs to 600). I'm playing the Axis in both (adds Sweden) and the results are very good. In a pair of PBEM games the scenarios are being further tested and they appear to be in balance. The original purpose of making the UK powerful enough to defend against an early German Sea Lion is accomplished with enough spare MPPs to invest in research, build bombers and send troops to Egypt. I don't remember the UK being ablt to do all those things in the standard game '39 scenario, but they did them historically, so I think it's a success. And none of it involves US scrap iron or America's entry into the war, it's one sixth size, distance from Europe or India with it's lack of potatoes -- all of which would be more relevant to a DIFFERENT FORUM, poopsies included. [ March 10, 2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Hey John, you wanted my opinion and I gave it not just a warm body like most people do. Teehee Anyways anyone who argues Britian's power in this game, just use the Carrier bug that or stop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Liam I respect and enjoy your opinions. I enjoyed everything you've said in these postings. And I'd still like to know your opinion on this particular subject! Which is the game issue of adding the above named minor countries to the two sides for added play balance. The carrier bug is just a game quirk and doesn't affect the greater issues or answer any real questions. It's only significance in is the way the game is currently played. Hopefully Hubert will work all those game mechanic inconsistensies out in future upgrades and it won't even exist. Meanwhile we're using these minor country realignments to test the earlier idea of how neutrals affected the war in MPP terms. [ March 10, 2003, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 As many things are figured in John, the way I put in it in my first post. That the economics are tied in, that was Hubert's idea I 'think'. That the reason Germany makes such good money and the other major nations from relatively small Resource pools is they're already collecting anyways on Foreign nations though you can't see it visibly, it's taken for granted. More or less like you can't see Stukas though you can't for granted when 9 German AirFlottes attack a line of Russian defenders and destroys them utterly you have them included in the Flottes. As well as Destroyers, Artillery in Armies, AntiAircraft-Naval bombardment Artillery in Ports, unit antiaircraft. Although a lot of these factors would be interesting to elaborate on... I would like the inclusion of Artillery, Anti-aircraft as a seperate entity. I would like destroyers as a cheaper mainstay for German Naval production. Say something that stops hordes of Russian Corps from storming Sweden or Northern Germany cause with his Industrial tech they're little more than a nuisance<tie up force> for the Germans. It would stop foolish landings in North America, Britian, and other places in the Med for Germany and Italy to have a General defensive Gunboat of sorts... Though that is getting on a deeper level... I wouldn't mind dive-bombers<anti-tank technology>, medium bombers<close range OPs>, heavy bombers<strategic><which we have> also included. Also purely Fighter aircraft only... As far as Sweden's economy well I mean as far as the Rest of the Free World being tied up into the Allies, though it doesn't incorporate in the game Sweden is a big cash crop if you want to stop the German's using it.. I don't really like the Swedish Front I think it's sorta Ahistorical to have 2 million men in Scandanavia on both sides and 10 thousand aircraft each... as well as the entire navies of both nations I wouldn't mind making permanent Neutrals... Giving the Mines to Germany Given that she invades and conquors both Denmark and Norway as a given...Switzerland wasn't worth the effort to invade and it would have been a Political Suicide<early in the War> as many other invasions would've been. Likely including Sweden... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Oh and By the way: It would help to make France worth more than it is<4 cities? egads>..As well as other European Properties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Liam Thanks for the reply, I take it be an overall positive. The reference that was being used was COS assigning economic points from neutral to beligerants if their support level increased past a given point. The other things you mention are interesting and I'd like to stop those wandering sea corps as well, and so would many other players. You'd be doing everyone a favor if you'd take all those items you mentioned and started forums for them. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but they'll just die here without getting any further. They need their own forums and you're the one who brought them up, so you ought to have the honor of starting them! :cool: I can't start any new ones for a while, I have too many going already. So, Liam, the ball's in your court, we need another million seller from you like that what-if forum that ran for 180 or so postings! Only this one has to be on one of those game topics you mentioned. Putting each of them in it's own forum wouldn't be a bad idea. [ March 10, 2003, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 BTW: The game I have going vs the AI using the second variation (Iraq, Ireland, Portugal & Greece Allies, Sweden Axis) has been working very well. Probably no one would agree with the AIs handling of things, but it's getting good research results and buying numerous units. An early Sea Lion was impossible. Now Germany needs to choose between a later Sea Lion or preparation for Barbarossa. [ March 10, 2003, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 JerseyJohn, I've been playing the AI pretty much as you presented, with Ireland, Iraq, and Portugal as Allies, and Sweden as Axis. I also added an HQ and a tank (hey, they have plus 1 Tanks)to France. I'm playing at +1 experience and 50% less booty. I also allowed Russia to declare war as opposed to declaring war on Russia(makes the Russian campaign more difficult). All in all, this has made for a good game so far. Sealion was out of the question. Took Vichy & Norway. Yugo took longer than I wanted since they declared just before their turn. Now advancing into Russia. I'm thinking of playing the computer as Allies, giving the computer Sweden, myself nothing, as well as not putting up a defense on the top 2 maginot hexes, then playing at +1 exp with a 50% booty bonus for the computer, what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 KDG Sounds great. I think we should be creative with the campaign editor, particularly when we're only planning a project for our own use against the AI. The addition of those minors did exactly what it was supposed to do, make the game more interesting and prevent an early Sea Lion. As for taking the Allies and giving the AI Sweden, etc., you're experienced enough to pretty much do what you want against the AI. With the Axis the AI doesn't launch Sea Lion and has a tendancy to batter itself against the Maginot line even if the way to Paris is clear! You're playing it the right way for competition sake, let the AI run wild on the continent, give it Sweden which it would never have taken otherwise, see if it takes Norway, and explore possibilities. No point reenacting the same game over and over again. Onward and Upward! [ March 13, 2003, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 In games involving the circumstances mentioned above, where the Allies start off with Iraq, Portugal and Ireland (adding Greece as a further option)while the Axis gets Sweden, I've found the following house rule usefull. Leave the Swedish Army and airforce where it is. Don't move them till either an Allied landing seems imminent or the Allies have landed in (conquered) Norway. As a consequence they can't be used for the invasion of Norway. Allow German troops to pass through Sweeden and launch the invasion from it's borders (simulating the special conditions achieved by the Axis) but don't allow German Luftflottes to launch attacks from Swedish territory. After Norway falls do not move German troops through Sweden or use Stockholm as an embarkation port or move Swedish units from their starting positions. Employing this house rule allows the addition of Sweden for MPP purposes without adding units to Germany's OB. Or, perhaps simpler and better, delete the Swedish corps, airfleet and second army from the OB, leaving the First Army Sweden's only unit and stationed permanently in Stokholm. If Greece is added to the Allies I'd recommend deleting the Athens corps and one Army, placing the other as the Athens garrison and insuring the British don't get extra units either. The basic idea is only to add these countries to more accurately reflect MPP levels, deleting excess units will insure they don't exceed this capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts