Poland doesn't surrender

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Poland doesn't surrender

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> Poland doesn't surrender

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Poland doesn't surrender - 1/28/2021 3:12:49 PM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

Issue I've discovered with Poland is that if sufficient forces run away from the capital into eastern Poland, it doesn't immediately surrender if Warsaw is taken. So literally, the Allies can "game" it and retreat into eastern Poland instead of defending a perimeter around Warsaw. I've had this happen to me as the Axis in three different games where I wasn't able to destroy enough Polish units before taking the capital. So this negates taking Poland in two turns.

Post #: 1

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/28/2021 7:06:44 PM

Sovyetsky

Posts: 25
Joined: 5/28/2020
Status: offline

That is correct.

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 2

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/28/2021 7:29:59 PM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

So someone can be "gamey" and runaway to delay the Axis one more turn? That's ridiculous. I despise manipulating the game mechanics to get an unrealistic advantage.

(in reply to Sovyetsky)

Post #: 3

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/29/2021 1:24:47 AM

Jackmck

Posts: 68
Joined: 6/15/2019
Status: offline

1. There are many "gamey" tricks the Axis player can utilize as well- maybe this helps balance.

2. I see no advantage for the Allies- Poland takes another turn or two to fall while the Axis move their best units to attack France early or simply get more experience by destroying Polish units.

Overall, I don't like the element of chance in the surrender of Poland. Sometimes, Poland won't surrender when Warsaw is captured even if units aren't moved east. Sometimes Poland surrenders regardless. Not fair for mirrored PBEM games. Would prefer the game was more arbitrary- i.e. Poland surrenders when Warsaw is captured (unless Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is not honored).

Historically Poland lasted 35 days having been invaded by both Germany and the USSR. Therefore, a one turn capture is not ahistorical provided that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is honored. The invasion by the USSR was a essential factor in Polish war effort- maybe if the pact was not honored, Poland would have fought for a longer period.

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 4

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/29/2021 1:47:29 AM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

I prefer to play within historical margins of what was feasible/probable. The Polish army abandoning their capital and running east towards the Russians is absurd, but players do it because they know Poland will fall. And that one turn of extra pursuit adds time to the Axis clock. The Axis in this game is tied to the time table of events: Poland Sep 39, France May/Jun 40, Yugoslavia end of Mar 41, Barbarossa Jun/Jul 41, Pearl Harbor end of 41. Any one of these events will happen with or without the Axis player's participation. It may take longer if the Axis doesn't initiate it, but they will happen without some major deviation from the historical timeline. The Allied player simply has to disrupt the Axis's timetable to get an advantage, as time and overwhelming might will bury the Axis if they allow their timetable to be seriously delayed. So gamey moves by the Allied player are more available and more likely than for the Axis. Examples besides Poland: Using the French fleet as Kamikazes' against the German/Italian fleets because they have the foreknowledge of France's fall. Using the Allied fleets to harass the Italians into declaring war to avoid penalties for declaring war on Italy and causing it to enter the war prematurely when it hasn't had a chance to build up its partial units and deploy troops to Libya. Using the two engineers available to Russia to build the great wall of Russia because they know Barbarossa is coming in 1941 even if Stalin didn't. Sending the British fleet to the Pacific to ambush the Japanese fleet in early 1941 to preempt Pearl Harbor and Singapore. And there are many more ways the Allies can use foreknowledge to their advantage.

(in reply to Jackmck)

Post #: 5

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/29/2021 1:49:22 AM

Elessar2

Posts: 883
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline

If desired, a script can be added to cause their National Morale to drop to zero if there's less than X units close to Warsaw.

(in reply to Jackmck)

Post #: 6

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/29/2021 1:50:45 AM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

That would be a good idea.

(in reply to Elessar2)

Post #: 7

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/29/2021 10:12:02 AM

Dorky8

Posts: 254
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline

great idea.

At the same time a script should be added that the entire Initial German force for the Polish offensive needs to be engaged in Poland until it falls. Say west of their initial position. No moving units to attack the Low Countries/Maginot in October, thats just as gamey. Move German units east before Poland falls SU mobilization goes up 10-15 + French MPPs rise.

< Message edited by Dorky8 -- 1/29/2021 10:14:47 AM >

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 8

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/29/2021 11:05:39 AM

Marcinos1985

Posts: 430
Joined: 1/22/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dorky8

great idea.

At the same time a script should be added that the entire Initial German force for the Polish offensive needs to be engaged in Poland until it falls. Say west of their initial position. No moving units to attack the Low Countries/Maginot in October, thats just as gamey. Move German units east before Poland falls SU mobilization goes up 10-15 + French MPPs rise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dorky8
great idea.

At the same time a script should be added that the entire Initial German force for the Polish offensive needs to be engaged in Poland until it falls. Say west of their initial position. No moving units to attack the Low Countries/Maginot in October, thats just as gamey. Move German units east before Poland falls SU mobilization goes up 10-15 + French MPPs rise.

Altough I strongly dislike any kind of Axis cheese in this game, I would say this proposal is way too harsh. Why would you force player to copy Hitler's mistakes and wait with attack to Spring 1940? You have hindsight knowledge, use it. Don't play holy and pretend you don't know what is coming

You just take your pieces and use them, nothing gamey about it. It also adds another layer of decision for Allied player, either you pump up existing defense or go more greedy and buy units.

That's about "gamey" argument. But you may present the problem other way. I assume our beloved game was not balanced around rush strategies, like late 1939 France attack or 1940 USSR invasion. It's balanced around historical dates - that's why France gets tanks in May, not when they need them, and so on. French defenses are in really bad shape in the beginning and need several months to stiffen. But if Axis goes for them outright, weather must kick in otherwise it's KO in 03-04.1940, if not earlier. It of course requires tactical skill, but still...
If we want to "deal" with early rush on France/Lower Countries we may make French defense better. Something like this - after French war declaration NM would start at higher level than now, but fall gradually with time passing (phony war) and make them way weaker in Spring 1940. Generally I prefer to make Axis task harder, than to penalise them for doing it.

_____________________________

WaW ELO Tournament
3 Tips to improve your game now

(in reply to Dorky8)

Post #: 9

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/29/2021 11:31:32 AM

Dorky8

Posts: 254
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

Altough I strongly dislike any kind of Axis cheese in this game, I would say this proposal is way too harsh. Why would you force player to copy Hitler's mistakes and wait with attack to Spring 1940? You have hindsight knowledge, use it. Don't play holy and pretend you don't know what is coming You just take your pieces and use them, nothing gamey about it. It also adds another layer of decision for Allied player, either you pump up existing defense or go more greedy and buy units.

That's about "gamey" argument. But you may present the problem other way. I assume our beloved game was not balanced around rush strategies, like late 1939 France attack or 1940 USSR invasion. It's balanced around historical dates - that's why France gets tanks in May, not when they need them, and so on. French defenses are in really bad shape in the beginning and need several months to stiffen. But if Axis goes for them outright, weather must kick in otherwise it's KO in 03-04.1940, if not earlier. It of course requires tactical skill, but still...
If we want to "deal" with early rush on France/Lower Countries we may make French defense better. Something like this - after French war declaration NM would start at higher level than now, but fall gradually with time passing (phony war) and make them way weaker in Spring 1940. Generally I prefer to make Axis task harder, than to penalise them for doing it.

There is no way the Germans would have pulled a large part of the Polish attack force and slow walked Poland to invade low countries.

France attack was successful because of the surprise Manstein plan.

It is a game tho.

As you point out the problem is the French troops in the game in no way represent the actual French armed forces (no tanks?). The French grow over time anticipating a Spring '40 attack. I like your suggestion that if the Axis attacks low countries/Maginot prior to Feb '40 the French get a boost . Maybe a large one time MPP boost (like a plunder), and the tank & HQ appear.

(in reply to Marcinos1985)

Post #: 10

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/29/2021 2:45:38 PM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

French had tanks, just poorly deployed them in small packets as support. They had armored formations of mostly their "cavalry" tanks. The Allied player also knows what is coming and builds available AA's for British and French to further disrupt the Spring 40 invasion they know is coming. Hard to avoid foreknowledge, and I don't think tactical changes are gamey, but strategic alterations based on foreknowledge is gamey, like sending the British navy to the Pacific in early 1941 to ambush the Japanese fleet to preempt Pearl Harbor and Singapore. That would be both logistically and politically unlikely, but the game allows it. Invading France earlier is not "gamey" to me as Hitler would've done the same thing if the OKW told him they were ready. I like to time my invasion of Netherlands and Belgium with Norway and Denmark, so I am at the French border at the beginning of May. To me, that is a strategy within the abilities of the Germans at the time. I ask potential players if they are willing to play historically and provide examples of ahistorical play. If they don't like those limits, that's fine, I'll find another player who values the historical experience over "winning" at any cost.

(in reply to Dorky8)

Post #: 11

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/29/2021 7:30:02 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: havoc1371

So someone can be "gamey" and runaway to delay the Axis one more turn? That's ridiculous. I despise manipulating the game mechanics to get an unrealistic advantage.

warspite1

But then where do you draw the line? You've made a specific point about Poland but 'unrealistic' moves are a feature of most strategic games.

If Polish set up and performance has to conform to a certain realism, and Germany the same when it comes to the Low Countries France etc, then why would this not apply to Spain for example?

Despite wanting Gibraltar there are many reasons Hitler did not invade Spain and many equally overriding reasons Franco wouldn't join Hitler. So one could argue very strongly that any World War II game that seeks to take out Gibraltar by a German involvement (in one form or another) in Spain is unrealistic.

Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from, but I think that games like this or World In Flames etc are there for alternatives to be explored. But each of us has our own line in the sand over what is acceptable or not. Your way of checking out potential opponents first, to ensure you have the same mindset, seems sensible.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 12

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/29/2021 9:00:33 PM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

I ask for a historical game. So far, I've not had issues with most of those players who have agreed, and I give examples or they can ask. I'll play either side under those restrictions. Its actually not that inflexible to play historically. Mainly both players agree to take no strategic action that was not feasible for the countries at the time due to capabilities or politics. Harassing Italy to cause the AI to have it declare war is gamey; it is purely to avoid having the Allies declaring war and incurring diplomatic penalties. Or having the British navy surprise attack the Japanese navy in the Pacific before Dec 1941; this is something (IMO) the British would've never have condoned or attempted.

If I am playing someone and they do something I question, I'll send them a question about it, and if they can provide a reasonable historical example, then okay. But if the action was purely to manipulate the game to their advantage without historical precedence, the I will thank them for the game and end it.

I play military games as much for the historical flavor as for competition. Think of it as watching a Sci-Fi space show and then you see a character go outside of a ship without a suit by holding their breath. It spoils it and, for me, detracts from the enjoyment. I'd rather enjoy the game and get soundly beat by someone who out smarts me, not the AI mechanics.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 13

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/29/2021 9:12:54 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

So, and as said, if that works for you then great. I would be interested in understanding what sort of limitations would apply:

- would you allow an invasion of Spain by either side?
- would you insist on hampering Italy with the Mussolini effect e.g. he must attack Greece or Yugoslavia in 1940?
- would you insist on hampering the UK with the Winnie effect e.g. if Greece goes to war then the British have to intervene with a force (tba)
- do the Japanese have to launch a Pearl Harbor?
- what limitations would you place on the Royal Navy in the Indian Ocean?
- are Japan allowed to attack Ceylon or India or Australia for that matter?
- are the Finns allowed to go beyond their historical 'stop line'

Just some examples as a flavour to help me understand what you mean by realistic. As a keen (very) amateur historian I'd be interested in a game with an AAR.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 14

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/29/2021 9:46:32 PM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So, and as said, if that works for you then great. I would be interested in understanding what sort of limitations would apply:

- would you allow an invasion of Spain by either side?
- would you insist on hampering Italy with the Mussolini effect e.g. he must attack Greece or Yugoslavia in 1940?
- would you insist on hampering the UK with the Winnie effect e.g. if Greece goes to war then the British have to intervene with a force (tba)
- do the Japanese have to launch a Pearl Harbor?
- what limitations would you place on the Royal Navy in the Indian Ocean?
- are Japan allowed to attack Ceylon or India or Australia for that matter?
- are the Finns allowed to go beyond their historical 'stop line'

Just some examples as a flavour to help me understand what you mean by realistic. As a keen (very) amateur historian I'd be interested in a game with an AAR.

Spain was courted by both sides, and considered a possible threat by both sides, so yes I think that its feasible, especially if one side is diplomatically enticing them to join the war. So if the Allies see German diplomatic efforts pushing Spain towards war, it is reasonable that they would plan action to preempt such a move, like invading Spain.

The game has an event for Mussolini invading Greece, so I have no problem with it. I also don't have a problem with German troops being brought in through Albania to assist; this is feasible military action, and Hitler did finally assist when he was forced to deal with Yugoslavia. Britain doesn't need to support Greece by landing troops and the game doesn't require it through events or penalties other than landing units does raise their morale. Again, military decision.

Japan did attempt to invade India via Burma, so landing in Ceylon isn't out of the question if the Japanese are doing well. Again, this is within reason as Japan was at war and pursuing just such a strategy; they just weren't successful in reaching India.

Finnish troops were capable of going outside of their country. If Hitler had insisted, and provided significant support, they could've been more active. Once again, failure in taking Leningrad was the major impediment to what the Finns could've done.

Playing strictly by history would be boring. Mainly my "historical" play is about not taking advantage of a flaw in the game to achieve an advantage over your opponent. You aren't "beating" them, your beating the game engine. So military decisions that would be historically feasible are acceptable. Invading Vichy France rather than going through Normandy was considered, and actually done, albeit after the Germans discarded the Vichy government and took control.

What I say to potential opponents is that if you think it might be gamey, it probably is. As I said elsewhere, if they can provide a historical precedence for their action, I'm fine with it. Its about the strategic political/military decisions that are done purely to throw off your opponent, or to manipulate the AI, and are antithetical to one side or the other's historical behavior.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 15

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/30/2021 1:50:33 PM

Dorky8

Posts: 254
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline

I just want the game to offer options that are within reason of historical possibilities.

The problem with pulling troops from Poland early isn't historic possibilities. One could argue it wasn't a historic possibility in Sept '39 (with all the troops on the border) but it is a game. The big problem is attacking the low countries/Maginot very early takes advantage of the games design were French troops start very weak (not near historic) so they can't attack. If the low countries/Maginot are attacked early the game should compensate so the French/Brits can go to full strength.

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 16

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/30/2021 2:48:10 PM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

Germany geared up for war all through the latter half of the 1930's. Britain and France had to mobilize for war on their declarations, hence the building up of their units. Germans defending the French border don't start full strength either. I don't think a France first strategy is historic because I think Hitler still believed that there was still a chance Britain and France wouldn't go to war over Poland. I do agree that maybe a political event that if there are more than # German units within 3 hexes of the French/Low Country borders, their mobilization increases.

(in reply to Dorky8)

Post #: 17

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/30/2021 6:01:35 PM

Jackmck

Posts: 68
Joined: 6/15/2019
Status: offline

quote:

I prefer to play within historical margins of what was feasible/probable. The Polish army abandoning their capital and running east towards the Russians is absurd, but players do it because they know Poland will fall. And that one turn of extra pursuit adds time to the Axis clock. The Axis in this game is tied to the time table of events: Poland Sep 39, France May/Jun 40, Yugoslavia end of Mar 41, Barbarossa Jun/Jul 41, Pearl Harbor end of 41. Any one of these events will happen with or without the Axis player's participation. It may take longer if the Axis doesn't initiate it, but they will happen without some major deviation from the historical timeline. The Allied player simply has to disrupt the Axis's timetable to get an advantage, as time and overwhelming might will bury the Axis if they allow their timetable to be seriously delayed. So gamey moves by the Allied player are more available and more likely than for the Axis. Examples besides Poland: Using the French fleet as Kamikazes' against the German/Italian fleets because they have the foreknowledge of France's fall. Using the Allied fleets to harass the Italians into declaring war to avoid penalties for declaring war on Italy and causing it to enter the war prematurely when it hasn't had a chance to build up its partial units and deploy troops to Libya. Using the two engineers available to Russia to build the great wall of Russia because they know Barbarossa is coming in 1941 even if Stalin didn't. Sending the British fleet to the Pacific to ambush the Japanese fleet in early 1941 to preempt Pearl Harbor and Singapore. And there are many more ways the Allies can use foreknowledge to their advantage.

Winning Axis strategies involve accelerating the timetable- attack low countries/France in 39, Barbarossa in 1940 (if allowed) or in March/April 41. Skilled Axis players use morale boosts and mobility to advance quickly and destroy allied units with the goal of winning the war before the US can intervene. I see the cards stacked against the Allies and they need to do whatever they can to disrupt the Axis timeline.

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 18

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/30/2021 6:25:46 PM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jackmck

quote:

I prefer to play within historical margins of what was feasible/probable. The Polish army abandoning their capital and running east towards the Russians is absurd, but players do it because they know Poland will fall. And that one turn of extra pursuit adds time to the Axis clock. The Axis in this game is tied to the time table of events: Poland Sep 39, France May/Jun 40, Yugoslavia end of Mar 41, Barbarossa Jun/Jul 41, Pearl Harbor end of 41. Any one of these events will happen with or without the Axis player's participation. It may take longer if the Axis doesn't initiate it, but they will happen without some major deviation from the historical timeline. The Allied player simply has to disrupt the Axis's timetable to get an advantage, as time and overwhelming might will bury the Axis if they allow their timetable to be seriously delayed. So gamey moves by the Allied player are more available and more likely than for the Axis. Examples besides Poland: Using the French fleet as Kamikazes' against the German/Italian fleets because they have the foreknowledge of France's fall. Using the Allied fleets to harass the Italians into declaring war to avoid penalties for declaring war on Italy and causing it to enter the war prematurely when it hasn't had a chance to build up its partial units and deploy troops to Libya. Using the two engineers available to Russia to build the great wall of Russia because they know Barbarossa is coming in 1941 even if Stalin didn't. Sending the British fleet to the Pacific to ambush the Japanese fleet in early 1941 to preempt Pearl Harbor and Singapore. And there are many more ways the Allies can use foreknowledge to their advantage.

Winning Axis strategies involve accelerating the timetable- attack low countries/France in 39, Barbarossa in 1940 (if allowed) or in March/April 41. Skilled Axis players use morale boosts and mobility to advance quickly and destroy allied units with the goal of winning the war before the US can intervene. I see the cards stacked against the Allies and they need to do whatever they can to disrupt the Axis timeline.

I find that the cards are stacked against the Axis, as they are the aggressors and have a timetable that the allies can easily disrupt by gaming known history by using the French fleet as expendable, building and deploying multiple AA's in France from Br/Fr, delaying Poland's surrender by a turn, delaying France's surrender till Sept 40 or later, both add up to an unprepared Germany for Barbarossa. Invading Italy early and seizing a port with 8+ value means you can instantly transport in more units. The ability of AVL's to operationally move and still invade means you can clear a path from Gibraltar to the Italian coast, fly a recon with CV's to find an open/garrison defended port, blitz in 2-3 AVL's, then have transports waiting to operationally move, land, and expand the beachhead.

Allies only get stronger the longer the war goes, so the Axis must make substantial gains early if they are to win. Outlasting the time limit of the game of the summer of 47 is not a "win" to me as the Axis. I consider the Allies conceding and exiting the war a "win". If I am the Axis and the game as boiled down to trying to survive till time runs out, I lose interest and will concede the game and move on.

(in reply to Jackmck)

Post #: 19

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/31/2021 12:13:09 PM

Jackmck

Posts: 68
Joined: 6/15/2019
Status: offline

quote:

I find that the cards are stacked against the Axis, as they are the aggressors and have a timetable that the allies can easily disrupt by gaming known history by using the French fleet as expendable, building and deploying multiple AA's in France from Br/Fr, delaying Poland's surrender by a turn, delaying France's surrender till Sept 40 or later, both add up to an unprepared Germany for Barbarossa. Invading Italy early and seizing a port with 8+ value means you can instantly transport in more units. The ability of AVL's to operationally move and still invade means you can clear a path from Gibraltar to the Italian coast, fly a recon with CV's to find an open/garrison defended port, blitz in 2-3 AVL's, then have transports waiting to operationally move, land, and expand the beachhead.

Yes, therefore most Axis elite players will advance the timetable and attack France in 1939 and overrun France mostly before Italy comes in the war. If the UK sends too many units to the Med, they risk being invaded in their home islands.

quote:

Allies only get stronger the longer the war goes, so the Axis must make substantial gains early if they are to win. Outlasting the time limit of the game of the summer of 47 is not a "win" to me as the Axis. I consider the Allies conceding and exiting the war a "win". If I am the Axis and the game as boiled down to trying to survive till time runs out, I lose interest and will concede the game and move on.

A win for the Axis is doing better than they did historically- at least by Fall 1945. One of my most enjoyable games as Axis was surviving till then and winning a Tactical victory in a Race to Victory scenario. It was close though.
Most games are decided by mid 1942 and it really depends on Axis progress in Russia.

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 20

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 1/31/2021 1:42:19 PM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

Yes, if the Axis fails to defeat Russia by the end of 1943, then it rolls over into a game of survival.

(in reply to Jackmck)

Post #: 21

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 2/1/2021 10:40:12 AM

BillRunacre

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

One thing we could do to limit the potential for an early Axis invasion of France and the Low Countries would be to add some RESOURCE scripts affecting some German towns in order to prevent Germany Operating any land units from the east to west for the first 4 turns of the game.

These would make the towns (shown with a yellow dot below) start the game at strength zero, rising by 1 per turn.

This would have minimal effect on Germany's income, but would mean that units would have to Force March to the west, or wait a bit longer before Operating west.

Thoughts?

< Message edited by BillRunacre -- 2/1/2021 10:52:24 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 22

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 2/1/2021 12:22:32 PM

ElvisJJonesRambo

Posts: 1345
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: offline

I would suggest a "bid system" or handicap instead for game balance.

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 23

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 2/1/2021 1:10:07 PM

Dorky8

Posts: 254
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

One thing we could do to limit the potential for an early Axis invasion of France and the Low Countries would be to add some RESOURCE scripts affecting some German towns in order to prevent Germany Operating any land units from the east to west for the first 4 turns of the game.

These would make the towns (shown with a yellow dot below) start the game at strength zero, rising by 1 per turn.

This would have minimal effect on Germany's income, but would mean that units would have to Force March to the west, or wait a bit longer before Operating west.

Thoughts?

Seems reasonable.

(in reply to ElvisJJonesRambo)

Post #: 24

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 2/1/2021 2:14:17 PM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

One thing we could do to limit the potential for an early Axis invasion of France and the Low Countries would be to add some RESOURCE scripts affecting some German towns in order to prevent Germany Operating any land units from the east to west for the first 4 turns of the game.

These would make the towns (shown with a yellow dot below) start the game at strength zero, rising by 1 per turn.

This would have minimal effect on Germany's income, but would mean that units would have to Force March to the west, or wait a bit longer before Operating west.

Thoughts?

I don't see what making the Germans force march to return from Poland has to do with historic parameters. Attacking earlier than they did in history is an operational decision more than a political/strategic one. Allies build AA's and place them in France before May 40, because they know they'll need them. I don't have a problem with that as it is a sound decision that the Allies could've decided after observing Poland.

You don't want to remove all choice from decisions on strategy. I like to play historically, but not so strictly that your just repeating the same history.

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 25

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 2/1/2021 2:33:27 PM

Dorky8

Posts: 254
Joined: 10/31/2015
Status: offline

It has nothing to do with history it has to do with how the French/Brit units strength and placed in the development of the game.

Historically there is no way the Germans would be poised to attack Poland and turn around and attack the low countries. The game would game to start in '37/'38.

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 26

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 2/1/2021 2:48:02 PM

Marcinos1985

Posts: 430
Joined: 1/22/2020
Status: offline

quote:

Allies build AA's and place them in France before May 40, because they know they'll need them.

Well, they are at war from Sep'39, why shouldn't they arm themselves? They knew GER had planes, I believe. What other things should they do with their MPP's?

Unless you want to recreate IRL situation from May'40, where Allies get surprised. I don't think many games do this though.

_____________________________

WaW ELO Tournament
3 Tips to improve your game now

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 27

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 2/1/2021 3:15:46 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

One thing we could do to limit the potential for an early Axis invasion of France and the Low Countries would be to add some RESOURCE scripts affecting some German towns in order to prevent Germany Operating any land units from the east to west for the first 4 turns of the game.

These would make the towns (shown with a yellow dot below) start the game at strength zero, rising by 1 per turn.

This would have minimal effect on Germany's income, but would mean that units would have to Force March to the west, or wait a bit longer before Operating west.

Thoughts?

warspite1

Bill I won't pretend that I understand the game anywhere near enough to pronounce on the best solution for the game.

But what happens is simply ahistorical - not just because it didn't happen - but because it couldn't happen (at least not in the way it can be done at present). The Germans breezed through Poland (relatively) but they still took losses, they still expended much ammunition and they had many lessons to absorb (unsurprising given the rate of growth of the army).

With all that in mind, it would have been a total disaster for Germany to have attacked in the west in late 39 as Hitler wanted them to do. Hitler's bacon was saved by the weather.

From what I can tell the Germans can easily attack Poland and then move West far too early. This means either Poland needs to be stronger so it costs Germany something to conquer, and/or perhaps they get more MPP later and less in the first few turns and/or the weather is worse.

All these things shouldn't stop a German player trying different strategies, but there needs to be an element of risk to doing so to ensure replayability. This risk currently seems absent.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 28

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 2/1/2021 3:25:56 PM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

"The Germans breezed through Poland (relatively) but they still took losses, they still expended much ammunition and they had many lessons to absorb (unsurprising given the rate of growth of the army)."

I don't know about your games, but in mine against other players, my Germans take casualties that require replacing. I think the game simulates that. The Axis player must use up a lot of mpp's to move those units to France to do an early attack, that they would otherwise spend on new units, research, or replacements. Operationally moving them west also lowers morale and readiness. I've tried early attacks on France and the Low Countries and have learned that readiness and weather generally inhibit any real gain from attacking early, so I've learned to just wait until April 40 before attempting it.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 29

RE: Poland doesn't surrender - 2/1/2021 3:45:21 PM

pjg100

Posts: 369
Joined: 4/8/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

One thing we could do to limit the potential for an early Axis invasion of France and the Low Countries would be to add some RESOURCE scripts affecting some German towns in order to prevent Germany Operating any land units from the east to west for the first 4 turns of the game.

These would make the towns (shown with a yellow dot below) start the game at strength zero, rising by 1 per turn.

This would have minimal effect on Germany's income, but would mean that units would have to Force March to the west, or wait a bit longer before Operating west.

Thoughts?

Not crazy about this. Seems like a bolted-on solution to a non-problem. I don't see an early Axis invasion of France as a problem, in part because with the game mechanics as they are it is impossible to force a surrender of France in 1.5 months as happened IRL.

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 30