New campaign, NO units, MPP only at start!

[Blashy]

Go your attention? Good read on.

The goal of SC is primarly to relive WW2 and alter its history.

I've made a campaign where I maximized to the limit how you can alter the history of WW2 within the limits of SC and its Editor.

Basically each country starts with no units (some exceptions, explained later) and you receive the equivalent in MPP. As well all TECH and research points given is removed and given as MPP.

Italy, USSR and USA can not have their units removed from the start so what I have done is make a house rule that once they join all their units MUST be disbanded. I've accounted for all the MPP you loose by doing so and already given it accordingly, for example: once you disband a US Battleship you only receive 60 out of the 660 MPP they cost, so I've already added 600 MPP, add in the 60 you get from the disband you then get the full value. This was done for ALL units that will get disbanded. A LOT of number crunching.

Obviously this is a Player vs. Player campaign only since it has House rules that need strict adherence.

This is how it goes:

Fog of War: Both players choice

Free French: ON

Yugoslav Partisan: ON

Soviet Partisans: ON

Scorched Earth: Both players choice (Suggest ON)

Siberan Transfer: OFF (Already accounted for in starting Soviet MPP)

All War joining is RANDOM.

Germany gets $$$ 1 Army and 1 Corps units that are already there by default, simply because those units are strategically positioned for the invasion of Poland and can not be placed at those locations if they were bought. I've deducted the MPP for those units accordingly (375).

Poland is not allowed to cross its border until the Allied 2nd turn.

Germany is not allowed to cross the French border or attack the maginot line until the Axis 3rd turn, this is simply to give the French a chance to man the maginot line.

Once Germany declares War on Russia, it must NOT attack immediatly, it most wait until Russian has had 1 turn to disband and place its purchased units. This seems to break the element of surprise but since Russian will not be able to purchase units near its border, only around its cities this will give Germany free reign to drive near the cities unopposed on the 2nd turn of declaration of war to Russia, still simulating a blitzkrieg.

Germany is ALLOWED to have troops land via transports on their 2nd turn on Russian territory.

France can not declare war on Italy and move in, it has to give the Axis player his turn to disband all his units and do his purchases, basically France is only allowed to attack Italy on the 2nd turn should it declare War.

France has 2 Corps that do NOT get disbanded, one in Algier and one in Sirya, for the obvious reason that Germany could simply send transports and take the cities with no resistance before France could send troops. Once again MPP deduction was done accordingly (250 MPP).

UK has no restrictions and they have a Corp guarding Gibraltar, Egypt and Malta.

Italy has 1 Corps on the City next to Greece and 1 army in each African city that do NOT get disbanded (for the same reason France has troops in Algier and Sirya). MPP deduction was accounted for (625).

USSR will disband all units except for 2 border Armies (simply because they are too far away to be dibanded on the 1st turn) as well the Corp guarding the port in the dead sea will not be disbanded as well. There will be no Siberian transfer; MPP was given accordingly.

USA will disbad all units and purchase / research as the player wishes.

***

What does this do? It simply allows US the players to determine what units you wish to have from the start. WE the players get to mold WW2 in our way from the start.

Now I need someone to playtest this with me or if you wish to playtest it with someone else, ask me for the file, I'll send it to you.

Campaign name: WW2 Build up.

blashy@hotmail.com

[ October 07, 2003, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy

Good idea and detail work.

I've tried variations on this a few times with others and it leads to a fun game. In the long run those games pretty much moved like a 1939 campaign, but your's might be different due to your treatment of the details.

Can't fit another game in even with a shoe-horn, already down to a move a week in the existing games. Hope you find an opponent, I'm certain you will.

Here's wishing you luck.

[pzgndr]

Interesting scenario. The UK Med garrisons in Gibralter and Egypt should also remain in the setup, since not having them may affect Italy's entry. You should check this.

[Dragonheart]

I like the idea giving every player the possiblity to decide what he really needs for his strategy.

..much more fun is guaranted

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

Interesting scenario. The UK Med garrisons in Gibralter and Egypt should also remain in the setup, since not having them may affect Italy's entry. You should check this.

Gibraltar, Egypt and Malta all have Corps.

I forgot to write it down in the text file, thanks for remind me.

[ October 06, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Blashy]

Can anyone tell me when France, UK and USSR started their military build-up for WW2?

I know Germany was in March 1933 (Hitler gains absolute control of German in Febuary, the economy is now turned toward military build-up)and USA was December 1941 (Pearl Harbour bombing, DEC 7th)

I'm asking this because I might have found a way to be even more accurate on starting MPPs than my current form.

[JerseyJohn]

Britain and France didn't start a buildup specifically for the war. They had a standing peacetime army, navy and air force, etc, and probably a reserve system. Which is how most countries traditionally organize.

Germany kept increasing it's army by multiples from 1933 onward, but that was because it only consisted of 100,000 men after the Versailles Treaty. The enlisted men of that force became the NCOs of later forces, and the officers jumped several ranks as the army expanded. Guderian, for example, was a Colonel in the late 1930s when he wrote his book, Achtung Panzer, but was the equivalent of an American leutenant general during the Polish Campaign in 1939. Rommel was a major in that force but a divisional commander (under Guderian) in the French Campaign.

This is similar to the American Civil War, where Robert E. Lee was a full colonel when he captured John Brown at Harper's Ferry, but a few years later was offered the highest field general rank in the Union Army, which he declined.

When Germany moved into Austria and Chzechoslovakia the British and French increased their military spending, increased research and provided for their largest armies upon completion of mobilization. Which they knew would take a few months to put into effect.

Germany took advantage of this in 1938 by moving on the Sudetenland in the Autumn and in 1939 by invading Poland during the same time of year. Hitler's reasoning being he'd be able to finish building his own army during the Winter while the British and French were still mobilizing theirs and getting it into position. Meanwhile it would be easier to defend the borders till the Spring thaw, at which time Germany would be fully mobilized and ready to attack.

In the last couple of years before the war the biggest development might have been Britain's development and manufacturing of the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters. The planes they replaced wouldn't have been a match for the ME 109, already Germany's main fighter. Radar was also much further developed during that period and was also in use by the Germans.

The USSR is harder to figure since Stalin was still killing his officers in the late 1930s. It was increased steadily in 1939-1940 and 1941 and the USSR had the world's largest Air Force, but most of the aircraft in use at the start of Barbarossa were completely useless and obsolete. None of them were manufactured after the start of war, when Russian factories suddenly began turning out more modern aircraft and tanks in quantities that German inteligence sources wrote off as disinformation!

Konstantin K. could fill the USSR in no doubt.

Hope some of that will be of use.

[ October 07, 2003, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Blashy]

I think the system I used is best suited for SC and I'm sure Hubert made his own research to find out what was the military power of each country prior to the start of the war.

[JerseyJohn]

Exactly. SC is an abstraction; specific info can often only be confusing.

At various times people have laid out the Tech Level weapons equivalents, it would probably be fairly easy to find that using the search function.

[ October 07, 2003, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Blashy]

Nah, I took out ALL tech and gave it as MPP.

My goal is that you start with virtually nothing but MPP and build for WW2 as you see fit.

I just need an opponent to playtest with, since it does not work well vs. the AI, it goes haywire not having any troops at the start and buys a gazillion corps to surround its cities.

[JerseyJohn]

The problem there is all the countries of Europe were never on an equal plain.

At the start of war Germany and Britain had the best fighters. They should both probably have L=1 in this area.

Germany and Britain were the only ones with both gunnery radar and anti-aircraft radar, they should both have L=1 in those areas.

Germany already had some knowledge of long range rockets, probably an L=1 there; the USSR doesn't, it only has early multi rocket launcher tech, which is artillery and not rocket, so they shouldn't have that L=1.

France had some good tanks but didn't know how to use them. Germany also had good tanks though not as good as those of the French, but they knew how to use them very well, so both countries should probably start with L=1 in that category. Russia had the T-34 and the U. S. was going through the Grant and into the Sherman, so probably they should also have L=1.

Anti-tank is okay with everyone at zero, though Germany and the U. S. had better technology in those areas, so L=1 to either of them is not unreasonable.

German U-boats were not very advanced, but their doctrine and training were, so they should probably get Sub L=1.

UK and USA had early sonar, so they should get L=1 there.

Britain and the U. S. had better bombers than anyone else, so an L=1 wouldn't be unreasonable for them.

Industrial Tech is probably good as Hubert set it, with only the U. S. and USSR having higher tech levels than 0, though for different reasons.

Britain, the USA and Italy had some long range aircraft development over the other countries. In the game the U. S. should probably be the only one getting an L=1, mainly because they come in fairly late, and they already had the B-17.

If you set everything at L=0 it means minor countries have the same weapons effectiveness as major countries. The Poles were brave and as effective as they could have been under the circumstances, but their weapons, especially in aircraft, were not the equal of Germany's.

A single research level isn't usually very important.

Starting everything off at zero is a game decision and there's nothing wrong with it in that context.

[Blashy]

Well the idea is to NOT follow how the leaders of those countries went but which path you would choose.

By getting MPP instead of TECH you can choose if, when and how much you want to spend in TECH.

That is re-writing history

Or if you want a Navy at all, or a 100% Military comprised of Army units only, lol.

[JerseyJohn]

I understand what you're saying.

What I'm saying is by the thirties, which in the opening technology reflects areas countries already had areas of specialty in long before the war started. The 1939 British Navy, for example, is not the same as the 1939 Russian Navy.

If you want to start on a level playing field that's okay as well.

A lot of people prefer setting all the research at zero and that's as advanced as it gets. Nothing wrong with that. Personally I'd prefer that to games with large desparities in research levels between countries.

I've played the game all those different ways and there are positives and negatives in every approach.

Probably no research levels is better than having too many, and especially too many in one country and not enough in one of it's enemies, in which case it becomes a walkover.

As you go along you'll no doubt experiment with many other ideas and reach a variety of conclusions.

Off to grab some sleep; have a good one.

[ October 07, 2003, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Dragonheart]

I would like to see no research at all but fixed dates where countries improve their current tech levls. (starting levls would be fine as jersey stated)

This would kill the "Chitusingluckfaktor" (nice word isnt´t it? ) in MP games.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Dragonheart:

I would like to see no research at all but fixed dates where countries improve their current tech levls. (starting levls would be fine as jersey stated)

This would kill the "Chitusingluckfaktor" (nice word isnt´t it? ) in MP games.

I'm probably the most TECH hater in this game, simply because it is a luck based event. I hate luck in Strategy games, kinda defeats the name "Strategy".

Pay 600mpp get a level, that's how I would do it. A sure thing, but a costly investment.

[Dragonheart]

I hate it too as in 2/3 of my games my oppenents have obviously more luck than me...

Even when i play with my 9years old son i´m technically outperformed

So winning against me counts nothing...better you play with my son... ROFL

[JerseyJohn]

Dragonheart

It might be that your son is a genius!

A similar thing occurred with a long ago World Chess Champion, Jose R. Capablanca. He learned the game by watching his father's social games, immediately began defeating him, became the local champion and around 12 he defeated the Cuban Champion in a match. Even at that point he was so new to the game that his oppenent, a saintly fellow named Cardosso, had to explain some rules to him between rounds!

Also in chess, Bobby Champion became the United States Champion at age 14 and was made a Grandmaster at age 15.

My own experience with exceptionally brilliant kids has led me to feel the best thing is to totally ignore them.

Send him out of the house with the suggestion that he gets involved in sports. Don't allow him to play. When he asks why just say, "You aren't old enough -- you wouldn't understand yet but you'll thank me someday." Otherwise a child like that becomes annoying and bad for one's own ego.

Brilliant kids -- who the hell needs them!

Reminds me of that old cliche, "nobody likes a smart kid!"

[ October 07, 2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[kurt88]

Would be great though to have 12-year old rushing in here and start defeating all the top players.

Damn JJ,see now were off topic again!

[ October 07, 2003, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: kurt88 ]

[Dragonheart]

In my future games i will call for his assistance

So beware yourselfe in future in games ag me and my small genius.

[JerseyJohn]

"Damn JJ, see now were off topic again!

-- Kurt"

Threads that stay on Topic more than five postings are beating the odds!

I wouldn't be surprised to see some 12 year old come in and start dominating the place.

Originally Rambo, in response to CvM's being 14. said he was twelve. I got into an argument with him and one of the other posters said I should be ashamed of myself for picking on a twelve year old! Probably he was the only person who didn't know it was a joke.

Dragonheart -- Okay, that's another way to use brilliant kids! It worked for Mozart and Beetohoven's fathers.

[ October 07, 2003, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]