Deployment Limits

[With Clusters]

The topic on "Free" units got me thinking. Perhaps the game needs to have limits on where units from certain countries are allowed to operate. This would certainly make the game more historically accurate, and help deal with some problems that existed in SC1 (like the necessity for an automatic French surrender), and issues being discussed for SC2 (the "free" troops, for example).

For starters, we should forbid activity in certain areas due to national rivalry/animosity (such as existed between supposed allies Hungary and Rummania). Also, crazily unrealistic deployments should be forbidden (Finnish troops defending the beaches of Italy or France, possible Scandinavian allies operating in N. Africa, minor allied Turkish troops participating in an attack on Spain, etc., etc.). I know people want to explore the potentials in numerous "what if" situations, but some of these "what ifs" would never have happened under any circumstance, at least in the 'real' world.

Of course, hopefully all this would be editable, for all the modders who want to create non-WWII games, or those who want to make really fantastic WWII games (of course, they might not truely be 'WWII' at that point).

The game just needs a little common sense in that regard. It would put the kybosh on unrealistic movements, like the Poles flying their entire airforce to the UK while Warsaw still holds out (and this brings up another possibility - that these 'limits' could change under dire circumstances, such as when a capitol falls to the enemy), while not expressely forbidding 'evacuations' and such.

Anyhow, that's my opinion. Comment and critisize, please!

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by With Clusters:

I think you would be surprised with some of the things that did actually happen during the war... for one instance, and I can't remember the exact details but I do remember watching a documentary where they mentioned the Allies capturing what looked like Mongolians or Far East Soviet-Asian troops in German uniform in Normandy. IIRC correctly they ended up being something like Tibetan shepards or something like that. Here is a pic from another forum where they discuss a similar topic:

For another example in the final days of Berlin, many historians note that there were probably just as many foreign volunteers, French, Finnish, Swedes etc. fighting in the streets as there were Germans right before capitulation.

Hubert

[ June 17, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[ev]

I agree with you WC. But finding a correct formula for implementing your idea wont' be easy. For example:

It does not make sense to allow 6 French Armies to rellocate to England while France is fighting for its own exisntance. However, the British and the French did plan and almost conducted a joint invasion of Norway prior to the German invasion of France.

It does not make sense to allow Finish troops in North Afrika. But, what if Russia was already defeated. Or, what if the British attacked Finland in 1940.

One suggestion:

Most countries should not be allowed to move units out of their country while there are enemy units within their borders. I would excempt England, Germany, and Russia from this rule. I would not excempt France, Italy, Canada, or the U.S.

So, if France wants to move units into England, it better do it before the Germans cross the border.

[Roosevelt45]

I agree with your point about the French troops but that's when you're talking about a major country.

I don't see why Finnish troops couldn't be fighting in N-africa.

On one side I would't like the fact that I'm not able to move my troops whereever I want to move them but on the other side I'm for more independance for minor countries as long as they put all of their potential in the allied cause.

[Lars]

Originally posted by ev:

Most countries should not be allowed to move units out of their country while there are enemy units within their borders. I would excempt England, Germany, and Russia from this rule. I would not excempt France, Italy, Canada, or the U.S.

So if I sneak one unit into one of those countries I tie the whole works down?

I don't think that will work too well.

[With Clusters]

Hubert:

"I think you would be surprised with some of the things that did actually happen during the war... for one instance, and I can't remember the exact details but I do remember watching a documentary where they mentioned the Allies capturing what looked like Mongolians or Far East Soviet-Asian troops in German uniform in Normandy. IIRC correctly they ended up being something like Tibetan shepards or something like that."

and,

"For another example in the final days of Berlin, many historians note that there were probably just as many foreign volunteers, French, Finnish, Swedes etc. fighting in the streets as there were Germans right before capitulation."

Those are good examples, but I do think there should be a difference between those who volunteer to go fight for a different country, vs those who fight under their own nation's flag. So I have no problem w/ SS fanatics fighting to the death in Berlin (rather than face whatever unpleasantries the Soviets had awaiting them if captured), or Osttruppen (sp?) fighting in France, for example. These are people who chose to put on a German uniform, so of course the German player should be able to send them anywhere he pleases (if indeed such units will even be represented in SC2). I have no problem w/ Finnish SS volunteers winding up in N. Africa. But I think it ludicrous to think that Finnish regular army units (fighting under the flag of Finnland, not Germany) would ever find their way to N. Africa (except in Bizzaro world), considering the Finnish war aims and such.

Seems like there are several intertwined ideas here:

1) Volunteers who (for idealogical reasons or whatever) join with their occupying power (which would be mostly Axis, I presume), and fight under the flag and uniform of the occupying power. Should these get their own units in the game? If so, how many, and for what countries? Or should there just be bumps to "allowable builds" or "total manpower" given to an occupying power to reflect such volunteers (different from every country, depending on its native politics, and who the conqueror is?). Of course, they should be able to deploy anywhere their master sees fit.

2) "Free" forces, who have chosen to join with an enemy of whoever occupies their homeland. In a sense, these are also volunteers, of a different sort. They depend on their "patron" (or patrons) for supplies, support, and often for orders. There is a whole other thread on this topic, so I suppose I can save my comments (regarding how they are 'created' and such) for there except to say that their "patron" should also be able to send them anywhere.

3) Minor Allies. These countries have joined the war for their own reasons, and fight under their own flag and political leadership. Although allied w/ a major power, they may not share the exact same goals and war aims (as in the case of Finnland, which in a sense was fighting its own private war w/ Russia, and was allied w/ Germany in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" way). They may have inherent national and/or political situations that may restrict where thier units could be deployed. Unless we want to "what if" the whole national and political situation as it existed in Europe prior to September 1939 (in which case, one must ask if it is a true WWII game any more), these realities should be respected for historical accuracy.

With Dipolomacy taking a greater role in the game, there could be some "flux" in all of this. For one example, say if the German player spends a chit on Finnland, maybe the Finns could adapt a more "pro-Nazi" philosophy (rather than looking out for number one - Finnland), and thus the German player could make broader use of the Finns. But some situations (like the dislike between the Hungarians and Rummanians, which I'm going to guess is a very old issue) might not be able to be "tweaked" with Diplomacy.

[With Clusters]

To continue, ev, I really like your idea that minor countries should not be allowed to "evacuate" while there are enemy units w/in its border. If we want the chance for greater numbers of "Free" units, perhaps we could say that restriction would be dropped one the capitol is in enemy hands (which could represent the destruction of effective central leadership, at which point every unit could make its "own" decision). If say a minor ally winds up with an enemy unit accross its border (to answer Lars' point), all re-constructed units (if I recall, each minor will have its own "allowable builds") must remain in the country until the enemy is driven off, or the minor is conquered. Units allready out of the country at the time an enemy unit enters would be allowed to remain outside, until destroyed (and rebuilt).

[With Clusters]

Also, maybe there could be some way of including pro-Axis "volunteers" from otherwise neutral countries (say, from a neutral Spain or Sweden)? Maybe with Diplomacy? As a step short of a country declaring war and joing w/ a major power? For example, say the German player spends a diplomacy 'chit' on Spain, but comes up just short of getting Spain to become a full minor ally. Instead, he gets 2 corps of Spannish "volunteers" (well, volunteered by Franco, at any rate). He can try again another turn to achieve full Spannish participation (at which point the 2 corps "re-join" the Spannish army, and are included in Spain's "allowable builds"). How does something like that sound?

[Blashy]

I don't agree with limitations like this.

It always starts with "more historically accurate".

If we want to be historically accurate, lets just not play and buy DVDs about the history of WW2.

The whole purpose of this game is to do things the leaders of WW2 would not or did not do.

If I want to take Norwegian troops and bring them in Iraq, that's my choice.

If I want to evacuate EVERY country the Axis DoW on, then I want to be able to do so. It won't give the allies much benefit anyway if the Axis get every country in 2 turns, that will just give them more time to rack up MPPs, not too mention not having to repair troops.

I don't want to be limited buy history in this regard, I want to rewrite how WW2 was played out.

If you want these, ask them as "options" not as built IN the engine where everyone is stuck with them.

[Lars]

Originally posted by With Clusters:

If say a minor ally winds up with an enemy unit accross its border (to answer Lars' point), all re-constructed units (if I recall, each minor will have its own "allowable builds") must remain in the country until the enemy is driven off, or the minor is conquered. Units allready out of the country at the time an enemy unit enters would be allowed to remain outside, until destroyed (and rebuilt).

That might work.

I'm not sure how the MPP's for minors are being handled yet though. Are they going to show up as a separate account?

[With Clusters]

I doubt the MPPs for minor allies will be seperate. In such a case, the major power could certainly "ingnore" the "commando" unit, and decline to rebuild the minor allied units in question if he didn't want the hassle of their not being able to leave their home country until the sneaky "commando" was dealt with. Of course, the easiest way to deal with it might just be to rebuild those units anyway, as they would be right on hand to deal with the interloper.

Blashy, I can respect your opinion. Certainly, all such things should be optional/editable (and, if I can guess at any 'trend' from the posts of Huber and his comrades, there probably wont be any "deployment limits" anyhow - too bad IMO ). If I had my way (something that rarely happens, so I won't be broken hearted if it doesn't ), I would still like to see such "limits" as option A (A being the "more historically accurate", if for some less interesting, option). Either way, I'll live, but it is what I'd like to see...

[Roosevelt45]

I agree with Blashy,

If I had my way, nothing except the concept and the beginning of the game would have anything to do with what really happened during WW2.

Meaning that when you start a scenario everything is historicaly correct(except if you have edited it with the editor) but from that moment on I can declare war, make peace, move troops,sack commanders,promote commanders,retreat,attack,... in short everything I want to do(excuse me if I sound a bit dicatorish).

BUT(another but) I would also have to take the responsibilities for my actions.

e.g.: if I let the Fins be slaughtered after they joined me, a lot of countries would be less inclined to join the axis like they have.

the same for the allies, if I were to order the full evacuation of , say Yugoslavia, right after they joined me(I don't know how I would do that since they have no port,but anyway..),

A lot of minors would think that the English are only interested in them for the troops they can provide and not in their economy or people.

As for countries that are declared war on by the axis, it would simply make no sense for the allies to emmediately evacuate because then it would be a total victory for the germans without even a loss of material.

[Blashy]

There will be consequences to any action, good or bad.

Ultimately, if all these "requests" are options, everyone will be happy.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Once again, we seem to have misconceptions because we have different understandings of what specific words mean.

Historically accurate doesn't mean the game system will constrict you to only recreating what happened in real life. If so, most of us would be quickly bored, as the Axis have no hope of winning in any recreation of WWII.

The fun factor in any game, is the replayability. And that comes from allowing us to make decisions that our historical counterparts didn't, along with the introduction of random factor(s), like technology research.

But where most of us wargamers have a problem, is when a game loses touch with the era its representing, and moves beyond the realm of whats possible.

So while the Rumanians (who wanted to show they were a power to be reckoned with) should be able to go anywhere... there should be some sort of penalty or restriction in working with the Hungarians, as they had just fought a brief "conflict", not to mention that they hated each other.

The understanding of those diplomatic issues, the interaction between various weapon systems, etc... is one of the reasons you produce a game in the WWII era, with those various nations.

Otherwise, call them Greys and Reds, and realize the game is RISK on steroids.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

I agree again.

But no game engine can exactly simulate the politic situation or psychology of the people during WW2, so we'll have to chose what we think should be put in the game and what shoulndn't.

Maybe we can solve the Hugary/Romania problem by dropping their morale to zero when they have to fight together.

Or, the closer they get to each other, the lower their morale goes or something like that.

Like I said in my last post, you should be able to do anything(even letting the hungarians and the rumanians fight side by side) but bear the consequences, wich would in this case be a very low morale.

[Queipo de Llano]

Interesting aside with respect to Hubert's post early in this thread, the US also captured some Koreans in Wehrmacht uniform during the Normandy campaign. Said Koreans had been conscripted into the Japanese army originally, captured by the Soviets at Nomonhan, forced into service with the Red Army, captured by the Wehrmacht in '41, and subsequently impressed into the German service.

Although history is silent on the issue, one hopes the Americans did not subsequently force these poor well-travelled chaps into the US Army.