Bill101 Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 How about trying this out to see if it gives a more balanced game, thus avoiding the need for bidding: Play the 1940 Fall Gelb scenario, with the USSR set to historical and the USA set to random. In this scenario the UK is relatively more powerful than in the 1939 one, with level 1 in gun laying radar, more units and a HQ. By setting the USSR to historical the Axis player has just 13 months in which to do all their cookie-cutting before they must start Barbarossa. Keeping the USA to random should discourage the UK from invading Ireland and Iraq until later. I'm thinking of giving this a try, and if you'd like to just send me an email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Bingo. 1940 avoids all the gambits, Germany already starts with Norway, UK is actually down one carrier which balances a few things, and both sides still have a full range of strategic options to choose from. USSR has no historical option, and really should be left on random to provide a challenging game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted October 21, 2003 Author Share Posted October 21, 2003 You're quite right about the USSR! Shows I didn't do my homework properly. Therefore I definitely agree about keeping it on random. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korut Zelva Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Funny thing I just posted the same thing yesterday in the "Should everyone conceade if.... " thread Well, I thought it was more balanced but I wanted to know what others thought. Good to see I'm not crazy the '39 scenario seem to see France fall too early, giving time for the Axis to control the whole Europe before swallowing the russian bear. With Fall Gelb you skip the standard opening tideousness and get right into the fun part, chewing up france. Granted the Axis don't get all the mpp from the plunder of poland demark and norway but the USA readiness starts at 15% in the scenario (with war already declared on LC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt88 Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 I used to play Fall Weiss exclusively,now I'm enjoying more and more scenario's. It breaks the routine and many of them are real fun.New tactics,new units,lots of new situations. Fall Gelb,Barbarossa,WWI campaign,they're all different and ask for another approach. People should give these campaigns a try.For some it could mean renewed interest in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt88 Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Btw,wasn't JJ playing an uber game with a campaign by Narayan?I rember it had a HUGE OoB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Hmm, I just had again a look at Fall Gelb. Yes, it is easier to play for Axis. They already have Poland, Denmark + Norway and will take LC in their starting turn. Allies cant go for LC, Spain or Norway. There are no risks for Axis any more, nothing can stop them. With additional 2 armies, 1 tank, 2 corps and everything standing near LC, they will get France within only a few turns. Allies dont have the time to prepare for defence and will be steamrolled. France will fall a bit later than in the 1939 Scenario since it starts in May, but Axis have still plenty of time to conquer all usual neutrals and US/russian readiness is low. Summary: Axis is very strong in "Fall Gelb" compared to Fall Weiss. Allies have not the time to prepare for defence in France or use any other strategy to hurt Axis. They cant collect some mpp for a long term defence and will have even problems saving their second Carrier in the Med. Chances are high, that the carrier + support ships will be destroyed. Therefore in my opinion, the 1940 campaign is not more balanced than the 1939 one. It is very much in favour of Axis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Therefore in my opinion, the 1940 campaign is not more balanced than the 1939 one. It is very much in favour of Axis. True for the default 1940. I made some mods in the 1940 Campaign that make it more challenging. IMHO I think it's fairly well balanced for hth play but always a little more tweaking may be needed. I used to play Fall Weiss exclusively, now I'm enjoying more and more scenarios. My various Campaign mods and those of others offer many opportunites for playing the same game, but with a slightly different feel. Obviously as you get later into the war your strategic options narrow and you're basically rehashing WWII unless the mod is specifically for alternative history. But starting in 1940 or 1941 leaves you free to try different things and play a shorter game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Originally posted by kurt88: Btw,wasn't JJ playing an uber game with a campaign by Narayan?I rember it had a HUGE OoB. I played the one with the HUGE OOB. He tried to make it as accurate as possible historically. But, the Allies are too powerfull. 13 Air Craft Carrier UK + 2 France, 3 UK Air, 2 France Air and the UK Navy is IMMENSE. Forget about taking the MED as Axis, it belongs to UK, end of story, those ACC will pound you and the minute you send Air to defend that area, they leave and pound somewhere else, or they take the units with the most strength and kill your fleets. Basically, you'll never be ready for Barbarossa if you try and defend against the Navy and ACC and if you let them do as they wish, they'll have Brest and Bergen all the time, they'll take Africa without breaking a sweat and Iraq after that. I know I played as Axis and even my Allie opponent agreed that he had it easy with all that firepower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Kurt The AAR is Logan Hartke's 1945 Fall Weiss. When I started that one I had a little more free time; also, I underestimated how long it would take to move all the units -- there are dozens of them! -- and write everything down for the AAR. I'm still in the middle of the Axis first move, haven't touched the naval units yet! I don't want to move pieces and give a running narrative. I want to record everything on a start to finish and action performed basis. Howard Cosell will be doing a play by play of each move with color commentators he's met in the afterlife -- Attila the Hun, Napoleon Bonaparte, Ghengis Khan, and some not so good generals such as Ambrose E. Burnside and Darius III along with guest appearances by former people such as George Armstrong Custer, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. The AAR as it stands now is on page four. I'm hoping to start working on it regularly next week. Most likely I'll drop the idea of detailing every move. Here's a link to it: < JJ vs W.O.P.R. in Logan Hartke's 1945 Fall Weiss Scenario > [ October 21, 2003, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt88 Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts