A Balanced Fall Weiss and Historical too?

[SeaMonkey]

Well gang can it be done. Lay aside the ahistorical game mechanics, amphibious landings, killer airfleets, etc. Historically, in general terms, the Axis were beaten by the rising tide of the USSR and USA, can we duplicate this? My thinking is you take JJ's Fall Weiss (for historical beginning accuracy) and add MPPs and Tech advances/chits to the 'Rising Tide". Hmmm that sounds like a good name for the campaign. Think of it, no more bidding, and the Axis are supposed to lose by May 1945 or they win, or you and your opponent can carry on till the end of the game. How can we define exactly what is needed to produce this effect. My thoughts are about 3500 beginning MPPs for the Russians and about 2000 for the USA with a level 5 tech in IT(USA only) in conjunction with the allocated research chits/levels that JJ's scenario has provided. So what does the forum think, how about you bidding X-Z Leaguers? Testing has commenced.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

Many Thanks for using that scenario as a basis. I was in the process of revising it when my machine belly-upped and haven't been able to get back to it since; also, as you know, I'm trying to revise the Z-Plan and Brest-Litovsk Scenarios, both of which are also at Otto's in their earlyier versions.

When you first mentioned all those U. S. MPPs to me I didn't think much of the idea, but now it's growing on me.

I think it depends upon the Axis approach to the game. I've been favoring an overly historical appraoch, where the Germans don't invade Spain, Vichy or Portugal. I'm wrong in this reasoning, it's come to be the normal strategy and, as such, makes Germany very strong as opposed to the UK. If Barbarossa turns into a quick crush, as it will in the hands of many expert players, then the Allies are done for by 1944.

Seen in that light, 3500 MPPs for the USA doesn't seem unreasonable.

Good idea but it needs to be tested.

Will wait till further opinions are stated before going on.

BTW -- for those of you unfamiliar with the scenario mentioned in SeaMonkey's post, it's literally an adaptation of Hubert's 1939 Fall Weiss, with some ideas I liked from Bill Macon's 1939 MOD and a few of my own added in an attempt to balance things out. Nothing radical.

[SeaMonkey]

Glad your warming up to the idea JJ as your input would be most valuable. I'm trying to imagine that the USSR, after losing all their starting armies and a couple of tank corps, should be able to build a couple of army groups. Or if the player wishes a bunch for the "corps" strategy, hiding away the one or two surviving airfleets while investing the 3 starting research chits. Suckering in the Germans and getting the Siberian transfer along with the 2 army groups would give the USSR some striking power of which Finland would be the first victim, or perhaps Iraq, Turkey anyone? Now the Germans truly have a "Red Bear" by the tail. As for the western allies, the starting 2000 MPPs and US level 5 IT should be enough for recon in force, can you say "Dieppe". Ahem! When was Torch? The year of turning should be 1942 and 1943 should be the year of relative equal strength between Axis and Allies. From there it should be all downhill for the Axis, but with some major tech luck, maybe not. Now this is the underlying premise for "Rising Tide" although it may not work like best laid plans, but isn't that the point, who wants to play if you know what's going to happen. As it is now, everything equal, we know what's going to happen in SC1 default "Fall Weiss"

[JerseyJohn]

"As it is now, everything equal, we know what's going to happen in SC1 default "Fall Weiss"

SeaMonkey

Which explains a lot of it!

Part of the problem is the quirks in the starting OOB; if the USSR has enough spare MPPs Finland is a goner, all it takes, basically, is an HQ and perhaps and air fleet, unless Germany has an HQ of it's own ready to land immediately, and even then it's hard for the out of supply Finns to survive the first few turns a determined Soviet invasion.

Ah, that silly-silly Mannerheim forgetting to give them supplies!

Actually, I'm wondering if that specific problem couldn't be sidestepped by selecting a hex that isn't occupied by Finnish troops but close to the Isthmus Army and border corps, painting it German, and putting a 6 pt German HQ there at the start of the game and forgetting about it till Finland enters the war.

Think that would work? Wonder if they'd start out with supplies and a decent battle readiness?

[ December 03, 2003, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaMonkey]

Good idea JJ, although I would like to see the Germans have to plan accordingly to commit an HQ and MPPs to that area. In default FW they can easily fund the northern adventure without much consequence to the main battle. The 2 Soviet army groups would make that a dubious adventure, but with the unfinished carrier you provided the Kriegsmarine and Luftflotte(LR)support from Sweden it would shape up to be a nice little battle. Right now my thoughts are not directed to helping the Axis to much. To bad we can't rename the HQs(for historical purposes), but CVM would have beat us to that anyway. Why not just activate the Finns from the start and we'll give the USSR another 2 grand MPPs. Hmmm I wonder what that would do to USSR readiness?

[ December 03, 2003, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

USSR readiness was also one of my considerations. A lot of other games based on the same subject do have Finland activated from Sept 1939 -- CoS, for example. In that case the place only has two corps, so moving them out to fight in France or Scandinavia hardly matters as they've got to return before Soviet activation or the country becomes easily invaded.

Got a kick out of the renaming part; you're right, CvM used to mention that Finnish HQ designated after his namesake almost every day!

It would be easy enough to find out what effect it's activation would have.

Or, we could just ask Hubert. Wonder if we'd get a or a ?

Off to dinner, enjoyed it very much.

[ December 03, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

"Actually, I'm wondering if that specific problem couldn't be sidestepped by selecting a hex that isn't occupied by Finnish troops but close to the Isthmus Army and border corps, painting it German, and putting a 6 pt German HQ there at the start of the game and forgetting about it till Finland enters the war."

Myself

The answer is no; can't color minor neutral hexes or set units in them as we were once able to. Did the next best thing and activated Finland from the start; will post how it turns out after some playtesting.

[pzgndr]

Did the next best thing and activated Finland from the start; will post how it turns out after some playtesting.

That could work. Activate Finland and stick a German HQ like Weiss up there, but reduce all their strengths. The extra MPPs for Finland can be used to reinforce those units.

Beware that Finland normally does not activate if USA is at war. Activating Finland from start could provide a small advantage for Germany.

Historically, in general terms, the Axis were beaten by the rising tide of the USSR and USA, can we duplicate this? ... My thoughts are about 3500 beginning MPPs for the Russians and about 2000 for the USA with a level 5 tech in IT(USA only)

Having wrestled with this, my conclusion is that a balanced AND historical game is practically impossible with the current game. There are several problems. One, growth rates for USSR and USA should be about 10-20% per IT tech level to get the historical rising tide. Giving these countries 5500 MPPs at start isn't a tide; it's a tsunami. It may produce some game balance, but it's not historical. Two, USSR's entire economy is on the board where actually European Russia made up about 50% of the total. This gives USSR more to lose and Germany more to gain, and it's a destabilizing feature in the game. Three, there are no force pool limits to stretch the Axis thin when they have the Allies on the ropes. Once Axis gets past the economical breakeven point, it's virtually impossible for Allies to recover.

Unfortunately, these problems cannot be fixed with a scenario mod or house rules. I do believe game "balance" can be achieved; it just won't be as historical as it could be. As long as SC players understand this, a challenging "game" with equal chances of victory for either side is possible.

[SeaMonkey]

Thanks JJ for the update. I haven't been able to do additional testing as work is unrelinquishing, but judging by the forum response we have again done the amazing. What's that you say........why putting together an almost perfect set of custom campaign parameters, ...again. We just never seem to stop surprising ourselves with such efficiency and on the first try......again. OUCH! Damn arthritic elbow, always flares up when I'm patting myself on the back. OKay I'll shut up....we wouldn't want to humble Rambo, oh yeah Ram. don't worry,... by the time you reach our age they'll probably be able to replace your rotator cuff.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

As usual I'm the one who owe you thanks for cheering me up on a dismal overcast New Jersey marshland day. This place should either sink into the ocean or rise out of it, but it should make a move one way or the other!

Bill

Thanks for the input, I agree and will try having the Finnish units weakened, that sounds like a good touch.

I've been experimenting quite a bit with Zappsweden's Lend Lease idea and it has an interesting effect in giving the UK enough MPPs to hold out. In addition to the U. S. cities and resouces @5MPPs per turn, Soviet cities and resources yield 3MPPs, allowing for some degree of fine tuning.

Your statement about having only half of the USSR economic yield in the game hadn't occurred to me till now (which is a bit disturbing! :eek: ) but you're entirely right.

I've attributed Russia's quick fall after an effective German breakthrough to the lack of severe winter, but the economic factor -- made worse by swinging in Germany's favor as it invades further -- may be even more to blame.

Very interesting observations.

Hopefully Hubert will add something regarding these ideas in relation to --

dare I say it?

-- I dare not!

In relation to nothing in particular Mr. C., but your point of view is always welcome.

[ December 04, 2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaMonkey]

OK I concede Bill M., your right.... it isn't totally historic, but what SC game is, other than at the beginning. The idea is to create the historical effect not necessarily the actual events. Its impossible to grow the economy with the present engine but you can simulate the concept by making the units less expensive with IT levels. The USSR starts out with level 2 IT and has 3 research chits to invest plus 3500 MPPs. I believe if the Allied player wishes he can max out IT rather quickly with a 5 chit investment although some time has to pass. The USSR player also can probably add some plunder and additional MPPs from the previously mentioned conquered minors. Now I ask you Bill, won't that create an effect similar to a burgeoning economy, abstractly of course. With the USA able to put an HQ supported army group or two on the high seas almost immediately after entry can you imagine the Axis paranoia. No longer can the Axis cannibalize the west for the east, he will have to garrison strongly and diversely, bleeding away his MPP total. What kind of effect will that simulate? The USA can also start to conquer a enjoy fruitful plunder and pillaged resources adding to its MPP count,.... the effect? Once again I reiterate that since we cannot precisely recreate history (we don't want to) with the SC engine, think abstractly and let's create the effect.

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Hopefully Hubert will add something regarding these ideas in relation to --

dare I say it?

-- I dare not!

In relation to nothing in particular Mr. C., but your point of view is always welcome.

Hmmm... I could, but I can't give all my ideas away... otherwise it would not be a surprise now would it?

Hubert

[Blashy]

If we want to simulate the rising tide and not completely change this game to a non historical WW2 simulation.

Why not have USA & USSR start with higher tech levels?

At 180 mpp per turn USA could be at L5 IT from the start and USSR at 4.

I know Germany could invest in IT as well but then it is less in other research or just a loss of combat MPP.

Or make a house rule, no IT for Germany.

[pzgndr]

Why not have USA & USSR start with higher tech levels? At 180 mpp per turn USA could be at L5 IT from the start and USSR at 4. I know Germany could invest in IT as well but then it is less in other research or just a loss of combat MPP. Or make a house rule, no IT for Germany.

This is exactly what I did for the 1941 winter counter-offensive scenario (at the Games Depot), with the recommendation that Germany does not invest in IT or limits itself to 1 chit to slow down the catch-up effect. So USSR and USA get extra MPPs, but not all at once at start. By the time Germany catches up, the Allies should hopefully have turned the tide. Also, Finland starts with a HQ. And the USA has a revised OOB for start. I like the feel of this scenario. It's still got its problems, but 1942 and beyond plays out fairly well.

Hmmm... I could, but I can't give all my ideas away... otherwise it would not be a surprise now would it?

The good news is that these "problems" with the current game can be resolved in SC2.

[JerseyJohn]

Hubert

I dared not say it but Wild Bill did and now your otherwise cryptic response becomes perfectly clear! -- :confused: ???

SeaMonkey

After thinking it over, the problem I had -- mainly from an historical perspective -- with the U. S. having 3500 MPPs is America never, in it's entire history, ever entered a war with it's pants all the way up and it's fly zipped or buttoned.

The large number of ready armies in the U. S., I've concluded, is only a safeguard against an early Axis invasion. As Bill says and as we've both mentioned in correspondence, those troops aren't overly effective offensively without HQs, so the U. S. has to spend time building before it can really affect anything. Which, of course is why you allowed for so many MPPs, to have it start with those things and jump right in on it's second turn in the war. I'm trying it with about 1000 U. S. MPPs to see how it works out.

The USSR I pretty much agree with, but cut it back to 1500, which considering what I'm doing with Finland may not be the right solution.

Finland is activated from the start with the Weiss HQ near the front. All it's units and the HQ start off at 3 pts, which in the long haul is only a minor inconvenience but significant at the start. As the Axis I'm using a house rule that the HQ remains in Finland till after Leningrad is taken, requiring Germany to create an additional HQ for the Swedish and Norwegian campaigns to come later. Of course, others may play it differently and not require an HQ there; I'm using a second house rule that Germany doesn't place an air unit in Finland till the first turn after Barbarossa is commenced.

I've started a game against the AI, FoW off, Expert +0, Minor Allies and others at Random, FF & Parisans on. So far, Nov 24 39, the computer is playing pretty well. Finnish activation and the HQ, which I've kept three hexes from the USSR border, haven't affected Soviet War readiness. Denmark invaded after Poland falls in one, and istelf falls in two. Initial German armies close to French / LC border and probably ready to cross over on March 3rd. After Denmark, US & USSR war readiness @ 6% & 4% respectively (both at 0% to start).

I'm planning to invade Sweden, Norway, Spain and Portugal after Hungary and Romania enter on their own. This should bring the US in toward the end of 1941 and get the USSR percolating by early 1942. As per my usual approach Italy will get Iberia, Yugoslavia, Greece & the Mediteranian even if German units need to do most of the fighting -- it pays off later when it has enough MPPs to handle it's share of the action and to also keep the Mediterrannean secure.

Anyhow, I'll update along the line on how the trial run is working out, so if you want do it a different way or with different settings we won't be duplicating our efforts.

I think it's got very good promise as a player vs player scenario. With four U. S. & four Soviet cities giving LL (+32 MPPs a turn) and Iraq as UK there's little chance of a successful Sea Lion, even with the expanded German Baltic Fleet (+CV+2BB+2CA+1sub).

I like the changes you've made in the specific OB I was working on, Germany is strong, but not overpowering. If we'd had this scenario for disorder's PBEM tournament instead of my original version there wouldn't have been any complaints, at least not credible ones, about it being tilted toward the Axis.

Blashy

L=5 Industrial for the USA and USSR might be the solution. Bill Macon's observation concerning Soviet MPP and it's downward spiral as the Axis begins occupying territory has me rethinking many of my earlier ideas.

I agree with your view that we don't only want to recreat history, even if it were possible, which it isn't. I think -- considering the Scenario starts in Sept 39 with the understanding that it's really Sept 42 -- that there is justification for a stronger USA and USSR, the one with it's eye on the Pacific (I'd assume Japan didn't push things into a war unless it was already happening in Europe) and in the other as a natural recovery from the purges. Deciding just how far they'd gotten in relation to the Continental Powers is the rally difficult part. I think Bill's approach and yours on the neutral MPP issue represent opposite extremes, so I'm trying it somewhere in the middle, a bit lower with the USA.

Italy does not start off activated, nor is it given a large amount of MPPs, which for now is the way I'd keep it. This, to me, represents the consequences of Mussolini's padding the administrative rolls with his less than capable Fascist hacks. The opposite view is equally valid, that his administration would have improved without two additional years of peace and spared the 1940-41 catastrophes. I'll probably give it a shot both ways. For now it starts with 300 extra MPPs, Bill M's 39 MOD precaution against an early Allied invasion, but not the Rome Gambit.

If I could add extra units without activating either country I'd place two more USA BBs (California class being transferred from the Pacific as they were replaced by the Iowas), two new CVs and two new CAs. Unfortunately, there's no way of doing this. These changes would be to represent FDR's naval construction program, which was already underway in 1940!

Bill

Thanks for the link, I didn't know about that 1941 campaign of yours and am eager to have a look at it.

Over All

I've reached the conclusion that a map smothered in unit counters is not much fun. Rather than opening options it actually tends to limit them!

Activating too many countries from the start has a similar effect.

Two of my early efforts, Brest-Litovsk Aftermath and the original Z-Plan had this problem and after the group effort* to creat an improved Z-Plan I'm planning to fix this problem in the Brest-Litovsk Scenario, creating it again from scratch. Naturally Hubert will announce SC2 the day after I'm finished!

*I say this because Panzer39 has also expressed many ideas on this and, like SeaMonkey, has distributed a scenario on the subject. Additionally, many suggestions were made and opinions offered by the players in disorder's Z-Plan PBEM Tournament, it was their observations which caused me to radically change me approach to the subject.

[ December 05, 2003, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[pzgndr]

I dared not say it but Wild Bill did and now your otherwise cryptic response becomes perfectly clear!

Just to clear the air and not give anyone an impression that I'm spilling the beans about SC2. I do not know how Hubert plans to resolve the various issues. I'm only suggesting that they are known and can be fixed with some modest changes. I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised along with everyone else when the time comes.

[JerseyJohn]

Bill

Not at all what I intended -- the :confused: --???? part was meant to show nothing at all had been cleared up!

Leave it to a smiley, frownie or confusie to really muddle things!

[SeaMonkey]

Yeah Right! You guys don't know a thing? SC2 is an oblivion of miss understandings, having no premise, no form, just an apparition of faith. And Hubert just happens to chime in..... Well I for one am not buying it, ... Bill you know more than meets the ear here and JJ.... well as for you, ...all I can say is Bill M.= Hubert = JJ,.... Kuni was/is closer than you think.

[JerseyJohn]

Kuniworth=SeaMonkey !!

Yes, that's about the only combination that wasn't tried already.

Well, how are things in Sweden? Over here it's like the Arctic today. Not that such a thing would be more than a minor inconvenience to the good hardy New Jersey Mutant Mosquettoes!

Actually, I'm sure your righteous indignation will get a decisive answer from Hubert -- I think perhaps a

[ December 05, 2003, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaMonkey]

Don't believe him Moon.....he's been bitten by one of those New Jersey swilling mosquitos. Now listen very closely JJ or Hubert or Bill or whatever you want to call yourself, you are having a slight fever... producing hallucinations......Ya here that Moon....he's in a surrealistic trance like state and there is no truth to his accusations.... damn .....sure is getting dark early around here.

[JerseyJohn]

You're right, it was a mosquitto, it just seemed odd to see so many of them buzzzing around among the snow flakes.

Kinda neat living in place where winter and summer coexist so perfectly.