War readyness of USA & USSR ???

[Ranson52]

Is it possible to "see" what war readyness the two nations are at - I can't tell what stage I am looking at in their build up to war.

[JerseyJohn]

Click on the War Map. It will list a percentage for Italy, USA and USSR if they are set at random. If Historical it will say that and if Neutral it will say that as well.

What it doesn't indicate is the war readiness of Allied and Axis Minors.

[Blashy]

Anyone ever find it weid that Russian starts at 30%?

Read up on history and all the way up to 1941 Russians were STILL supporting the Nazi government with supplies. Yes, as late as 1941 AND they had a non aggression pact.

IMHO it should be at 0%.

[JerseyJohn]

Yes, that's been one of my complaints since Day One. Soviet and U. S. war readiness should progress much more slowly.

The United States was solidly against entering the war in Europe and the USSR wouldn't have launched a preemptive war till 1943, if ever.

Also, a war started by Stalin, where the masses weren't defending Mother Russia from invaders would have been even less popular than Nicholas' folly of entering WW I. Stalin knew this. His primary concern was remaining in power and I doubt he'd have risked it on a war he had no confidence in.

But none of that gets anywhere. I know because I've posted it, using those exact words, many times during the past year.

One way around it is to set both on neutral and agree with your opponent that, say, the Axis can't win unless it also conquers the USSR and the Axis must declare war on the USSR no later than the end of 1943, and must declare war on the U. S. after taking London. That's just one idea, and probably the only way around it.

[ October 08, 2003, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Blashy]

We are on the same page.

I would prefer to put USSR as neutral and make a house rule that Axis have to declare war no later than Jan 1943.

I would just leave the US as is I find they work out ok.

[JerseyJohn]

Usually I find the U. S. enters the war in mid-1941 sometime, nearly always before the USSR reaches readiness.

This is as a result of the Axis hitting Denmark, Norway, LC, Sweden and sometimes Vichy and, once in a while Greece.

I'm considering just putting on historical all the time and figuring Pearl Harbor was inevitable. In the documentary, The World at War, Averill Harriman says all of FDR's closest were relieved when Germany declared war on the United States because even with the Japanese attack they knew the congress wouldn't approve a DoW against Germany and Italy.

[Blashy]

Indeed, FDR had wanted to go to war for a long time, he was no war monger but he knew the Villany of Hitler's campaign.

WW1 had the same situation, Americans had left Europe because of all its troubles, they did not want to get involved, hence the "token" involvement of the USA in WW1.

[pzgndr]

I believe the USSR starting readiness of 30% was established to make them a threat by late 1941, or earlier if Sealion is attempted. Setting USSR neutral removes a reasonable challenge for the Axis player. I recommend keeping the USSR threat active but perhaps reducing the starting readiness to 20-25%, otherwise you're fighting an Allied opponent with one hand tied behind his back.

On a related subject, I'm wondering if USSR and USA war readiness in SC2 should be hidden from the Axis player with FOW on.* I'm in the middle of a hth game as Axis and my strategy timetable has been heavily dependent on both USA and USSR entry. To the point of timing DOWs based on tracking war readiness numbers. This has been an interesting exercise, but somewhat unrealistic to have such perfect knowledge of enemy readiness. We already get some warning when USSR and USA begin to prepare for war, usually taking about 2 turns, and this should be sufficient. Thoughts?

* And Italy's war readiness hidden from the Allied player.

[ October 08, 2003, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: Bill Macon ]

[Blashy]

I would set USSR at 0%.

I agree that we should not see it if you have FOW ON, I was even surprised to 1st time I noticed I could still see it.

[JerseyJohn]

Agree with Blashy, I'd set it to 0%, along with the U. S. at 0%, both for reasons stated earlier.

Not seeing any of the percentages would be an improvement. Having a greater degree of randomness would also be an improvement and, also as stated earlier, I'd like both to be slowed down a bit.

In the setting Russia to neutral remark, I meant that in connection with an automatic German DoW at the end of 1942. What I dislike is both the U. S and USSR always seem to be jumping in the war during mid-1941, leading to only one typed of game.

In 1940 the USSR and Germany had differences regarding Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Finland, all of which Stalin felt should lie within the Soviet sphere. When Molotov went to Berlin, at Hitler's invitation, he was even more terse than Franco had been in an earlier Hitler meeting.

Hitler suggested that Russia should look south for it's "Outlet to the Sea."

Molotov sneered, "Really, and just which sea are we talking about?"

Later a British air raid broke up the dinner reception. Hitler, still angry over the earlier remarks, didn't show up for it!

In the bomb shelter Ribbentrop resumed the subject of Britain's imminent downfall. Molotov pointed to the ceiling and asked, "Whose planes are up there and whose bombs are they dropping?"

So there was an open rift developing between the two countries. Yes, it would eventually have developed into an outright war, but Stalin had no plans to do so in the forseeable future.

The only one bent on an invasion was Hitler.

[Curry]

Hey, I agree with Bill. You can't set the USA or USSR war readiness to zero because of game playability. If the game started with Russian war readiness at zero the axis would be in a even better position than it already is. If it was at zero then all the increases would also have to change. Its the same old debate on this board about historical verses game play ability.

This game is NOT a historical reinactment. Its just a game "based" on history. As I said above, same old debate that has been on this board since day one between the history nuts and the game playability nuts....

[JerseyJohn]

Well, at least we're all nuts!

[ October 08, 2003, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Iron Ranger]

Sorry guys but if you do this

I would set USSR at 0%.

Axis will win every time unless the players are at execedingly diffrent skill levels.

[Dragonheart]

What about no warentry level? They join historical whatever happened before.

[ October 08, 2003, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Dragonheart ]

[kurt88]

What about no warentry level? They join historical whatever happened before

You have that option.

[Edwin P.]

I second the call for hiding US war readiness with FOW on.

The problem that I have is that news reports would have given the axis a general idea of the war readiness of their opponents.

Perhaps you could hide the war readiness somewhat but give the axis a general idea via news popups that would give indicate a sift in war readiness but not the exact amount of the shift.

"NY Times - The US and Soviet governments express alarm at the invasion of Sweden."

"NY Times - British invasion of Ireleand triggers a large march for neutrality in the European war in New York City"

"NY Times - US Congress approves leand lease agreement with the UK and Russia"

"Pravada - The Soviet army announces the conscription of another 100,000 men"

[Dragonheart]

posted by Edwin

I second the call for hiding US war readiness with FOW on.

In this case declaring war on minors should increase warreadiness of USA randomly otherwise every play would know it anyway... as the numbers are well known.

[SeaMonkey]

Am definitely in agreement about hiding major country war entry status; simply because it adds to replayability. Randomizing/hiding this parameter actually would aid the Allied cause and contribute to the "what if" status of SC. In SC2 the war readiness unveiling of opposing major countries could be handled by the investment/tech level of "Intelligence/Espionage" category. Which could also be somewhat manipulated by a greater contribution of diplomatic prowess targeted by the player's discretion. Possibly through the use of some entity like "Diplomatic Chips" earned through MPPs or other actions. But this is for SC2, I vote a patch for SC1, "hide war readiness" from the opposing side when FoW "on". And yes I realize this has all been discussed before, but just in case some of us forgot.

[ October 08, 2003, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Blashy]

Well for one if USSR is at 0% then you put a lend - lease for USA to UK until USA joins the war.

This was in existence and the 1st lend lease was over 6 billion, 58+ billion was given away by the USA in such a fashion by the end of the way.

So I would go for a 0% USSR and give some lend lease of US oil, mine and a city to UK.

As hard as they tried, UK was holding its own and doing counter attacks when they were alone, you can't do that in SC, the UK MPP is just not there.

I still don't get why Ireland is not considerd part of the UK, sure they were not actively involved but they were selling goods to the UK, not the Nazis.

This of course is if you are looking for an exact replicaion of events.

Take the Fall Weiss OOB scenario (great fun, I am in a PBEM match with it), put Russia at 0%, give Ireland to UK, Give 1 city w/ port, 1 oild field from USA to UK until US joins and that IMHO is as good as it gets in realism terms. If realism is what you are looking for in a particular match.

Off course always take out the luck factor

[kurt88]

Blashy ,

Do you mean JJ's revised 1939 scenario?

He was talking about adding a lend-lease part to it.I also played that campaign,was against the ai though,but it's really good,well balanced,although Allied air might be a bit over the top.

[JerseyJohn]

Kurt

Glad you enjoyed the scenario, I'm playing a PBEM game with it now and will watch out for the air situation you've described. Probably it needs a Little tweaking before a new version is sent to Otto's.

In the Lend Lease adaptation I've been toying with diverting 20 or 25 of the neutral U. S. MPPs to Britain while Germany gets 6 USSR MPPs to represent the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, this is done by making Leningrad and it's port German.

Unfortunately if anyone lands at a colored port or assigned territory it screws the whole thing up if it's conquered or if there's a unit there when the country activates as a new unit is supposed to appear there for either the U. S. or the USSR. I've found the AI does that sometimes and, of course, there's nothing that can be done about it.

From what I've seen so far the extra 20-25 MPPs each turn makes the UK much stronger and also, I believe, closer to what it was during the actual war. The 6 MPPs to Germany isn't much but also adds up after a while, over it's entire collection span it might amount to an extra army.

To me the most boring situation is to just make marking time moves because there are too few MPPs to do anything. This is particularly harmful to Britain from late 40 through late 41 in the basic scenario.

General Points listed so far.

Other things being equal the Axis will have an edge with USSR and US at 0%, but I doubt it means Germany would win because of it, especially as the bid system is always used now.

What I'm talking about is altered scenarios where the UK starts out stronger than in Hubert's basic 1939 scenario.

The idea is to create some new options; if the USA and the USSR are set to always enter at the same time then you've always got the same game.

Sure it's only a game and not a historical replay, but it can always be made to more closely resemble the historical situation, and give the Axis a few options other than haveing to invade the USSR on or about mid-1941.

Historians are always saying Hitler's Russian Invasion was his big mistake, so why not allow for other possibilities, such as Germany building ships in the Bay of Biscay to challenge the Royal Navy?

[ October 08, 2003, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Blashy]

Kurt I'm talking about this one:

1939 Fall Weiss Revisited (enhancement of Hubert Cater's "1939 Fall Weiss"

for Strategic Command

by Narayan Sengupta

Is JJ Narayan?

Russia at 0%, give Ireland to UK, Give 1 city w/ port, 1 oild field from USA. And none of that bidding thing would be needed. I just don't like the bidding part of this game, it does not make the game feel like WW2, just throwing numbers left and right.

I'm currently playing it PBEM as Axis, I have yet to see anything about the Air power of UK, I'll keep an eye out.

A lend lease from Leningrad is a great idea.

[JerseyJohn]

"Is JJ Narayan?"

Please don't wish that on Mr N., I happen to like the guy.

My apparently similar scenario is titled: 1939 Fall Weiss Adaptation.

Any duplications between the two would be purely coincidental. Mine was done as an extension of Bill Macon's 1939 campaign. Martinov and dgaad had earlier 1939 campaigns, all of these I consider to be in the same concept grouping and directly derived from 1939 Hubert's game scenario.

[ October 08, 2003, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

From a playability viewpoint, I second the notion that we should not see the readiness numbers of the majors. With the Random option on, I believe we should take it a step further and have the starting readiness percentage represent the potential range that the nation starts with. Hence, if Russia has a readiness % of 30, then when the campaign starts, that readiness % would be anywhere from 0 to 30%. And again, we as players, would not be able to see a nations readiness %, or else it leads to us being able to plan based on knowing the exact turn that the enemy will enter the war.

For the reasons that were stated, choosing the Historical option, at least for the US, places the decision on when the US enters the war soley based on what Japan did. Having a variable random readiness % (see above), allows us to simulate off-map political events that would push up or push back the Pearl Harbor attack.

Italy already, is almost perfectly represented, as having German units near Paris trigger them to enter (or UK relocations in the Med) really can't be improved on.

This is off-topic, and if we really want to debate this, we should do so in another topic... but the problem with the UK isn't in the MPPs that it gets. For everyone who keeps saying they need more MPPs, you forget that the UK spent its MPPs on merchant ships, something SC doesn't represent. Not until the US arrived could it ease off the pressure of building merchant ships. And while the UK did have the Commonwealth manpower, it had to be very careful about where and how it was used, due to political constraints. Anyway, this is another topic type discussoin.

So to summarize about the UK, the problem isn't really the MPPs... it's more a combination of there being too few units in the standard '39 campaign and the scale of SC not being able to represent the smaller actions that the UK took that we cannot.

[Terif]

Here a short comment from a "game playability nut" :

War entry levels:

If you hide them, then you have a big luck factor in the game. Either you are lucky and move your armies to the border in time, then you can make the usual preemptive strike. Or you miss the time frame (when the "preparing for war" message appears, your units have already to be in position or it is too late), then you have a problem. 9 russian armies, tanks + AF dead or alive usually makes the difference between victory or defeat.

As with every change you can do it, but then you have to change a lot of other things too to keep the game balanced and not so luck depending.

Extra mpp for Allies/Lend-lease:

If Axis would go the historical way, then Allies wouldnt need extra mpp. But since Axis usually conquer a lot of neutrals, I agree: Allies should get additional "off map" mpps later in the war. This would give them the chance to turn the tide in 1942-1944. Lend-lease mpps should depend on Axis actions (e.g. conquering neutrals increase LL shipments), increasing with time and start after Barbarossa has begun. Then it would also be no problem to reduce USA warentry and they could join some years later. With Lend-Lease the game would be more historical as well as better playable (something for all kind of "nuts" ).

But such a change is up to Hubert in SC 2 .

Jersey John:

To avoid your problem with enemies landing at your assigned ressources: use inland ressources where nobody can land, e.g. in the Urals or around Washington. The hex control changes automatically when the original owner enters the war, no matter if a unit appears there or not.

BTW, port and Leningrad gives 5+5 = 10 mpps to Germany, not 6. So you can also use a russian mine for this purpose.

[ October 09, 2003, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]