New Ideas for CEaW Grand Strategy

PSP/DS/PC/MAC : WWII turn based grand strategy game

Moderators: firepowerjohan, Happycat, rkr1958, Slitherine Core

Post Reply
Pattonv2
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:23 pm

New Ideas for CEaW Grand Strategy

Post by Pattonv2 » Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:28 pm

I have been asked to start this topic for new ideas for Commander Europe at War Grand Strategy soon to be released.

I will start the discussion with an idea that I would like to see added in future.
The advanced weather in CNaW such as storms would be a nice addition. Where you have storm/clouds over hexes air attacks of any kind would not be allowed.

Plus to add more fog of war into the mix only the side who occupies the hexes can see what is there. The other side cannot.
For example: If on a turn each side can see Cherbourg, but France is currently occupied by the Axis player. The Allied player is ready to invade France and can see that Cherbourg has a German garrison and Paris is occupied by a German infantry corps. On the next turn a storm/cloud cover rolls in and hexes are now under the fog of war for the Allied player. The Axis player can see the hexes and rails in reinforcements to Cherbourg and Paris.

Now the very next turn the storm/cloud cover has passed and the Allied player sees the reinforcements. Now the Allied player needs to make a decision.
Possible attack with airpower for a few turns before the invasion hoping that another storm doesn't roll in any time too soon.

Happycat
Strategic Command 3 Moderator
Strategic Command 3 Moderator
Posts: 750
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:57 am
Location: Riverview NB Canada

Re: New Ideas for CEaW Grand Strategy

Post by Happycat » Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:41 pm

I like the idea for advanced weather, although when dealing with turns that encompass twenty days at a time, the loss of intelligence due to weather could have some unexpectedly harsh results. Still, if we look at this as an abstraction of a real-world situation, I think it could work surprisingly well. As with so many of the other great additions to CEAW-GS, the only way to be sure if something will work is to implement it and play-test it to death :D
Pattonv2 wrote:I have been asked to start this topic for new ideas for Commander Europe at War Grand Strategy soon to be released.

I will start the discussion with an idea that I would like to see added in future.
The advanced weather in CNaW such as storms would be a nice addition. Where you have storm/clouds over hexes air attacks of any kind would not be allowed.

Plus to add more fog of war into the mix only the side who occupies the hexes can see what is there. The other side cannot.
For example: If on a turn each side can see Cherbourg, but France is currently occupied by the Axis player. The Allied player is ready to invade France and can see that Cherbourg has a German garrison and Paris is occupied by a German infantry corps. On the next turn a storm/cloud cover rolls in and hexes are now under the fog of war for the Allied player. The Axis player can see the hexes and rails in reinforcements to Cherbourg and Paris.

Now the very next turn the storm/cloud cover has passed and the Allied player sees the reinforcements. Now the Allied player needs to make a decision.
Possible attack with airpower for a few turns before the invasion hoping that another storm doesn't roll in any time too soon.
Chance favours the prepared mind.

darkmatter
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:19 am

Re: New Ideas for CEaW Grand Strategy

Post by darkmatter » Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:41 pm

Pattonv2 wrote:I have been asked to start this topic for new ideas for Commander Europe at War Grand Strategy soon to be released.

I will start the discussion with an idea that I would like to see added in future.
The advanced weather in CNaW such as storms would be a nice addition. Where you have storm/clouds over hexes air attacks of any kind would not be allowed.

Plus to add more fog of war into the mix only the side who occupies the hexes can see what is there. The other side cannot.
For example: If on a turn each side can see Cherbourg, but France is currently occupied by the Axis player. The Allied player is ready to invade France and can see that Cherbourg has a German garrison and Paris is occupied by a German infantry corps. On the next turn a storm/cloud cover rolls in and hexes are now under the fog of war for the Allied player. The Axis player can see the hexes and rails in reinforcements to Cherbourg and Paris.

Now the very next turn the storm/cloud cover has passed and the Allied player sees the reinforcements. Now the Allied player needs to make a decision.
Possible attack with airpower for a few turns before the invasion hoping that another storm doesn't roll in any time too soon.
----------------------------------------------------
i wish Stalingrad had a higher value,or the pp goes up after Operation Barbarossa starts?in world war 2 Stalingrad was a major torn for axis and the allies need the port for re-supply i copyed and paste this inf

The capture of Stalingrad was important to Hitler for two primary reasons. First, it was a major industrial city on the Volga River – a vital transport route between the Caspian Sea and northern Russia. As a result, the German capture of the city would effectively sever the transportation of resources and goods to the north. Second, its capture would secure the right flank of the German armies as they advanced into the oil-rich Caucasus region – with the strategic goal of cutting off fuel to Stalin's war machine.[13] The fact that the city bore the name of the leader of the USSR, Joseph Stalin, would make its capture an ideological and propaganda coup.

The Soviets realized this and, though they were under tremendous constraints of time and resources, ordered that anyone strong enough to hold a rifle be sent to defend the city.[14] At this stage of the war, the Red Army was less capable of highly mobile operations than the German Army; however, the prospect of combat inside a large urban area, which would be dominated by hand-held small arms rather than armored and mechanized tactics, minimized the Red Army's disadvantages.

Happycat
Strategic Command 3 Moderator
Strategic Command 3 Moderator
Posts: 750
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:57 am
Location: Riverview NB Canada

Re: New Ideas for CEaW Grand Strategy

Post by Happycat » Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:51 pm

I concur totally with your third reason: any city named after Hitler's nemesis, Stalin, was bound to be high on the list of priorities for someone with Hitler's temperament.

You are quite right; the battle was a God-send to the Soviets (although I doubt that the hardliners thought that God had much to do with it :D ), and made the German capabilities in mobility utterly rudundant. The battle played very much to the Soviet strengths, i.e. expendable manpower, defending their own "turf" and of course also illustrated again (as if anyone needed reminding) that the defender holds most of the trump cards.
darkmatter wrote: ----------------------------------------------------
i wish Stalingrad had a higher value,or the pp goes up after Operation Barbarossa starts?in world war 2 Stalingrad was a major torn for axis and the allies need the port for re-supply i copyed and paste this inf

The capture of Stalingrad was important to Hitler for two primary reasons. First, it was a major industrial city on the Volga River – a vital transport route between the Caspian Sea and northern Russia. As a result, the German capture of the city would effectively sever the transportation of resources and goods to the north. Second, its capture would secure the right flank of the German armies as they advanced into the oil-rich Caucasus region – with the strategic goal of cutting off fuel to Stalin's war machine.[13] The fact that the city bore the name of the leader of the USSR, Joseph Stalin, would make its capture an ideological and propaganda coup.

The Soviets realized this and, though they were under tremendous constraints of time and resources, ordered that anyone strong enough to hold a rifle be sent to defend the city.[14] At this stage of the war, the Red Army was less capable of highly mobile operations than the German Army; however, the prospect of combat inside a large urban area, which would be dominated by hand-held small arms rather than armored and mechanized tactics, minimized the Red Army's disadvantages.
Chance favours the prepared mind.

ncali
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:12 pm

Post by ncali » Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:02 am

I posted this a little while ago. So, with a little cut and paste - here it is again. I really think that semi-random research would be the best way to play this game.

I didn't notice the thread asking for suggestions for the great BJR Mod (OK, I didn't look that hard). But one little thing I would very much like to see is for a semi-random research option.

Currently, the options are =
(1) Normal research, which is boring and predictable.
(2) Random research, which is interesting - but very erratic.

I usually play random research unless my opponent prefers normal, because I like the variety and the fact that you don't know exactly when upgrades will become available. But occassionally, it can be a bit crazy - with almost no research progress in one area and rapid progress in others. I'd prefer something about 50% or so less random than random research - but still random, with occassional breakthroughs interspersed with slower progress. Call it semi-random research.

Spechtmeise
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Germany

Diplomacy

Post by Spechtmeise » Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:28 am

I would like to see more diplomatic options, such as "exert pressure" or "ask for military access." This would give more depth to the gameplay.

Spechtmeise
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Germany

Reconnaisance

Post by Spechtmeise » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:25 am

Another thing that comes to mind: reconnaissance patrols. I am currently playing the BJR mod with fog of war off. I think the allied AI is preparing for an invasion of either Great Britain or mainland Europe. With fog of war on I have no way of detecting these moves, unless I send a u-boat out into the Atlantic ocean. In other words: how about including a long range air unit, such as the Focke Wulf Condor?

AC67
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:18 am

Post by AC67 » Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:38 pm

Hi all,

how about giving the possibility to go on with the game simulating a conflict between the Western Allies and the Sowjet Union? This could take place at any time after the Red Army and the Western Allies have reached the German homelands. German forces could take part in the new war on the Allies side. Don't know if the game could handle such a inversion of fronts and alliances, but it could be fun IMHO.

AC

trulster
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:20 pm
Location: London

Re: Diplomacy

Post by trulster » Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:19 pm

Skyraider wrote:I would like to see more diplomatic options, such as "exert pressure" or "ask for military access." This would give more depth to the gameplay.
Totally agree, as it is the various countries are modelled in a very simplisitic manner diplomatically, expanding the options would make it a lot more interesting.

Actually, expanding the map some hexes eastwards to show more of Russia/Iran would also be good.

pk867
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 3:18 pm

Post by pk867 » Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:02 pm

Hi,

This answer is for Skyraider.... The Germans start with a Strategic Bomber. It has a land spotting of 5 and a Sea spotting of 6. As the Strategic operations tech increases you gain longer ranges for movement, combat and spotting. The highest tech gives you a range of 12 hexes Sea spotting and 10 hexes for Land spotting. The new unit graphics the germans start with a Ju-88, progress to the Do-217, and end with the FW condor.

pk867
Last edited by pk867 on Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Spechtmeise
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Spechtmeise » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:20 pm

@pk867: sounds like you guys really think of everything, thanks!
I always thought CEAW to be a potentially great strategy game that fell short of its promise. With the BJR mod and the upcoming Grand Strategy mod this is turning into something really challenging. I look forward to Grand Strategy!

rkr1958
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4262
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:20 am

Re: Reconnaisance

Post by rkr1958 » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:59 pm

Skyraider wrote:Another thing that comes to mind: reconnaissance patrols. I am currently playing the BJR mod with fog of war off. I think the allied AI is preparing for an invasion of either Great Britain or mainland Europe. With fog of war on I have no way of detecting these moves, unless I send a u-boat out into the Atlantic ocean. In other words: how about including a long range air unit, such as the Focke Wulf Condor?
The following two excepts (p9 & p12, respectivelly) taken from: Enisenhower's Report on Operation Torch (especially the second except) answers your question. The Allies were worried about u-boats detecting the invasion fleet. German reconnaissance aircraft detected a small convoy east and northward of the invasion fleets and it was this event that contributed to the three Torch invasion fleets reaching their destination undetected and unschated. While this was unfortunate for the small convoy this was fortunate for the invasion fleets.

Thus, use of long range bomber aircraft and u-boats for reconnaissance in the game has (we believe) a historical feel to it.

Image



Image

rkr1958
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4262
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:20 am

Post by rkr1958 » Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:36 am

12-27-2009.

Here's the list of things that I've captured so far for consideration of GS enhancements. Please feel free to contribute and / or comment on the list so far. All suggestions will be considered but the final list will be decided on by the development team based on what we believe significantly adds to the expansion against what we think we can accomplish. Of course, reasoned arguments on your part can and will influence these decisions.

For now the development and testing teams plan to enjoy the fruits of our labors and just play the game. Of course, we plan to fix critical bugs if any more crop up. I don't know the schedule for implementing any future enhancements but anything before spring or summer is unlikely. We'd like to get feedback from wider play to better refine this list.

CEaW Grand Strategy Expansion – Candidate Future Enhancements List (12-27-2009)

Note: List is in no particular order.

• Recommend that the supply length of 20 hexes be changed to 22 hexes. Due to the weird game play it causes around Rostov for the German player, as well as it being very ahistorical. A supply length of 22 hexes allows regular German supply east to Stavropal-Tambov-Gorky, but, not to Stalingrad-Penza-Kotlas.
- In the expansion we moved Moscow closer to Berlin (5 hexes). We moved Gorky 6 hexes closer than the standard game. So that does not mean we should extend the supply distance just to reach Gorky and the other cities that were not present in the standard game.
- The Germans did not have the capacity to provide full supply out to that distance (which 1800 miles from Berlin) . Yes this is a simulation, but not to the extent of ruining the system. Because of map constraints the left edge of the map is closer than it should be.
• Change Chott El Djerib to swamp hexes.
• Tie in "land" hexes to either manpower (agriculture production) or Industrial output (Raw materials), depending on the hex type. This could add a new dynamic, as players controlling the Axis will actively attempt to capture "Lebensraum", instead of just the scattered cities within the Soviet Union. This could add new military strategies, as "not one step tactics might gain more importance. Furthermore, the entire region of the Ukraine will now be vital, instead of just the few "mine" hexes meant to represent the agriculture/industry of the area in CEAW. This could actively create new objectives instead of just the common "Straight advance to Moscow" strategy.
• Amphibious units that can attack occupied beaches (i.e., opposed landings).
• Paratroops.
• Change the map northwards so we get maybe 10-12 more hex rows. This way we can fully implement Northern Norway and Russia (i.e. have Murmansk and Archangel as Russian ports). This means changing both the editor and several game class files.
• Variable repair points for units. Instead of all or nothing, let the player have the option to decide how many repair points to add. The number of steps repaired would be selectable between 1 and the supply level of the unit.
• Add force pool limits; i.e., limit the number of product type depending upon
• Long term ship building, some would be immediate because the keels were already laid down. If not started then a longer build time. This would have to take into account of certain countries because of their unused capability could shorten the time (i.e.; USA). This will be needed if there is a Pacific expansion. Or number 1 could suffice. We could e. g. let the countries have different hull time production, but same unit time production. So e. g. USA could produce a hull in 2 turn, Britain in 4 turns, Germany in 6 turns and Russia and Italy in 8 turns. This also means they can produce destroyers faster than anyone else if we link destroyers to hulls.
• Monroe doctrine. The USA mobilizes on any axis invasion of North America including Greenland.
• Add Canada to Northern European weather zone or create separate zone for it.

ncali
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:12 pm

Post by ncali » Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:20 am

rkr1958 wrote:12-27-2009.
• Add force pool limits; i.e., limit the number of product type depending upon
• Long term ship building, some would be immediate because the keels were already laid down. If not started then a longer build time. This would have to take into account of certain countries because of their unused capability could shorten the time (i.e.; USA). This will be needed if there is a Pacific expansion. Or number 1 could suffice. We could e. g. let the countries have different hull time production, but same unit time production. So e. g. USA could produce a hull in 2 turn, Britain in 4 turns, Germany in 6 turns and Russia and Italy in 8 turns. This also means they can produce destroyers faster than anyone else if we link destroyers to hulls.
EDIT: This originally confused me as I thought it referred to more than just naval units (the bullet heading is I think what got me). I'm still kind of ambivalent about it but not as thoroughly opposed. It makes some sense, but then - it's kind of nice to wonder what if? various countries like Germany and Italy put more focus on the navies before the war and in the early years. The current open-ended game system allows for that. Overall, I think I prefer the game as is.

If you were to try to change it, I don't favor hard limits on particular countries. Changes to naval builds (such as your hull idea) might instead take into account current naval tech and industry tech (like the system does for amphibious operations). This way, countries that historically neglected their navies like Germany could still be a threat. I realize that some of these decisions (laying down hulls) would realistically have had to have been made before the game begins in 1939, but I prefer it if the game is flexible enough to allow for a stronger German or Italian navy. Again, I actually think it's better to leave the game as it is - but since you are considering a change, I thought I'd mention this.

rkr1958
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4262
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:20 am

Post by rkr1958 » Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:34 pm

ncali wrote:
rkr1958 wrote:12-27-2009.
• Add force pool limits; i.e., limit the number of product type depending upon
• Long term ship building, some would be immediate because the keels were already laid down. If not started then a longer build time. This would have to take into account of certain countries because of their unused capability could shorten the time (i.e.; USA). This will be needed if there is a Pacific expansion. Or number 1 could suffice. We could e. g. let the countries have different hull time production, but same unit time production. So e. g. USA could produce a hull in 2 turn, Britain in 4 turns, Germany in 6 turns and Russia and Italy in 8 turns. This also means they can produce destroyers faster than anyone else if we link destroyers to hulls.
EDIT: This originally confused me as I thought it referred to more than just naval units (the bullet heading is I think what got me). I'm still kind of ambivalent about it but not as thoroughly opposed. It makes some sense, but then - it's kind of nice to wonder what if? various countries like Germany and Italy put more focus on the navies before the war and in the early years. The current open-ended game system allows for that. Overall, I think I prefer the game as is.

If you were to try to change it, I don't favor hard limits on particular countries. Changes to naval builds (such as your hull idea) might instead take into account current naval tech and industry tech (like the system does for amphibious operations). This way, countries that historically neglected their navies like Germany could still be a threat. I realize that some of these decisions (laying down hulls) would realistically have had to have been made before the game begins in 1939, but I prefer it if the game is flexible enough to allow for a stronger German or Italian navy. Again, I actually think it's better to leave the game as it is - but since you are considering a change, I thought I'd mention this.
Dave, I tend to agree with you. The bullets I posted above comprise what I've capture from others and don't necessarily reflect my personal view or opinion.

In terms of force pool limits or even ship limits I understand these from a technical point of view. However; from a game play, or replay, point of view I tend to favor no limits on either. One thing I like about CEaW is that we don't have to manage the non-military aspects of a country; especially, the industrial part. All of this is abstracted fairly well I believe. When a country purchases a BB fleet for 70 PPs, or a CV fleets for 110 PPs, that's ready in 8 turns, or 160 days, I don't view that as that fleet being built from scratch. I view that as an abstraction of what it takes to transform some group of resources into a battle ready group of ships in the Atlantic. For example, it could represent the transfer of ships from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Or it could represent high priority being placed on existing ship building efforts to turn out the fleet. PPs naturally constrain these efforts. For example, German can theoretically build an unlimited number of BB and / or CV fleets, which many may consider unrealistic or unhistorical. However, the reality is that Germany has more pressing needs for their PPs (e.g., research, infantry, armor, air) that naturally constrain these builds. If an axis player decides on Sea Lion and a naval heavy strategy then the assumption, or abstraction, is that Germany's shipbuilding and other industries would be in lockstep with that strategy.

I know I'm rambling but to me the central question is do we want, or need, to make this abstraction less abstract and require players to manage these types of resources. If so, then I think we need some mechanism in place to allow players to choose different at-start country "configurations" (for lack of a better word) to represent pre-war focus on alternate strategies.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:21 am

I remember that Jim had a suggestion of changing Tangiers into a capital meaning that Spain won't surrender if Madrid falls. Instead they will fight on with Tangiers (in Spanish Morocco) as the new capital. Franco used Spanish Morocco as the base to fight the republican forces so it does seem plausible that Franco would continue fighting from Spanish Morocco and not surrender if Madrid falls.

I also suggest the following change using the game between Supermax and Panzergeneral as a reference.
British convoys are rerouted to Halifax if London falls. I propose that we reroute the convoys to Washington if Halifax falls. That means the UK convoys will be sent to a US port instead.

Another suggestion would be to immediately activate USA if the Axis player controls a hex in Canada.

A third suggestion should be to let the convoys go to USA (Washington) and be added to the US production if Britain surrenders. The point is that the Commonwealth (India, Australia, South Africa etc.) would send the resources to the remaining ally (USA) if the British were knocked out of the war. It doesn't seem logical that the Axis would get control of all the Commonwealth just because the Axis would occupy Canada.

It's not likely that the Axis will land in Canada, but Supermax has shown how this is possible so we have to think about what would have happened in the real war if something similar happened. Does anyone have info about this? Jim?

ncali
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:12 pm

Post by ncali » Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:15 am

Stauffenberg wrote:I remember that Jim had a suggestion of changing Tangiers into a capital meaning that Spain won't surrender if Madrid falls. Instead they will fight on with Tangiers (in Spanish Morocco) as the new capital. Franco used Spanish Morocco as the base to fight the republican forces so it does seem plausible that Franco would continue fighting from Spanish Morocco and not surrender if Madrid falls.
I think Spain should surrender when Madrid falls. After years of civil war, I just don't think any kind of organized resistance besides partisans would have continued. This is particularly true if Hitler and Mussolini stabbed their fascist friend in the back.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:10 am

ncali wrote:
Stauffenberg wrote:I remember that Jim had a suggestion of changing Tangiers into a capital meaning that Spain won't surrender if Madrid falls. Instead they will fight on with Tangiers (in Spanish Morocco) as the new capital. Franco used Spanish Morocco as the base to fight the republican forces so it does seem plausible that Franco would continue fighting from Spanish Morocco and not surrender if Madrid falls.
I think Spain should surrender when Madrid falls. After years of civil war, I just don't think any kind of organized resistance besides partisans would have continued. This is particularly true if Hitler and Mussolini stabbed their fascist friend in the back.
I guess we need to discuss this before making a decision. Does anyone have documentation about how the Spanish would react to a DoW? One good thing about Spain falling after Madrid falls is that then the Axis have a chance to actually succeed with the invasion. If they need to take Tangiers as well then you have to destroy every Spanish unit and march the hard way down to Gibraltar. It will take forever and you can't do it before Barbarossa. Currently you can blitz to Madrid and then rail some forces to Seville and Cordoba to quickly take Gibraltar. Then you have a chance to be back in the east before June 1941. All depends upon how fast you can get past the rough terrain north of Madrid.

leridano
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:51 pm

Post by leridano » Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:20 am

Stauffenberg wrote:I remember that Jim had a suggestion of changing Tangiers into a capital meaning that Spain won't surrender if Madrid falls. Instead they will fight on with Tangiers (in Spanish Morocco) as the new capital. Franco used Spanish Morocco as the base to fight the republican forces so it does seem plausible that Franco would continue fighting from Spanish Morocco and not surrender if Madrid falls.

I also suggest the following change using the game between Supermax and Panzergeneral as a reference.
British convoys are rerouted to Halifax if London falls. I propose that we reroute the convoys to Washington if Halifax falls. That means the UK convoys will be sent to a US port instead.

Another suggestion would be to immediately activate USA if the Axis player controls a hex in Canada.

A third suggestion should be to let the convoys go to USA (Washington) and be added to the US production if Britain surrenders. The point is that the Commonwealth (India, Australia, South Africa etc.) would send the resources to the remaining ally (USA) if the British were knocked out of the war. It doesn't seem logical that the Axis would get control of all the Commonwealth just because the Axis would occupy Canada.

It's not likely that the Axis will land in Canada, but Supermax has shown how this is possible so we have to think about what would have happened in the real war if something similar happened. Does anyone have info about this? Jim?
  • I vote for only one capital in Spain and then for a spanish surrender if Madrid falls.
  • I also vote for automatically USA entrance at war if the axis forces invade Canada and to deploy garrisons (Home Guard) in all North America canadian and american cities. (e.g. Fredericton, Portland, etc). This is a more important solution to redirect convoys to Washington because even these convoys were redirected to Washington if London and Halifax falls, the convoys would be easy targets for a Kriegsmarine during almost a year (thinking in supermax AAR) and then the german navy could do almost what she wants in the north american coasts with the convoys.
  • I also vote (this has been discussed before) for a belgian activate if german invades Holland. It is very comfortable for the germans to go first for Holland and then for Belgium so the 20 points effectivenes penalty is more effective because they have already finished Holland and the allied forces in France are more "recently" penalized than if there was an early activation.
  • And finally, I vote for creating a Commonwealth separate forces so if UK surrenders all the british forces out of the mediterranean scenario would dissappear but not the british and commonwealth forces in North Africa and Irak. This way the iraqi oilfields wouldn´t be so easy targets for the german and italian forces if UK surrenders.

trulster
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:20 pm
Location: London

Post by trulster » Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:43 am

leridano wrote:I vote for only one capital in Spain and then for a spanish surrender if Madrid falls.[/list]
  • I also vote for automatically USA entrance at war if the axis forces invade Canada and to deploy garrisons (Home Guard) in all North America canadian and american cities. (e.g. Fredericton, Portland, etc). This is a more important solution to redirect convoys to Washington because even these convoys were redirected to Washington if London and Halifax falls, the convoys would be easy targets for a Kriegsmarine during almost a year (thinking in supermax AAR) and then the german navy could do almost what she wants in the north american coasts with the convoys.
  • I also vote (this has been discussed before) for a belgian activate if german invades Holland. It is very comfortable for the germans to go first for Holland and then for Belgium so the 20 points effectivenes penalty is more effective because they have already finished Holland and the allied forces in France are more "recently" penalized than if there was an early activation.
  • And finally, I vote for creating a Commonwealth separate forces so if UK surrenders all the british forces out of the mediterranean scenario would dissappear but not the british and commonwealth forces in North Africa and Irak. This way the iraqi oilfields wouldn´t be so easy targets for the german and italian forces if UK surrenders.
Agree on only one Spanish capital.

Re: Kriegsmarine having fun with the convoys, well they will have to contend with US Navy AND what is left of the RN (if Ottawa still not conquered), so if the Germans have built enough ships to overcome that force then they are welcome to the spoils I think.

Also, I think that with US automatically at war when Canada is invaded, it is fair enough that if Ottawa is captured and UK surrenders (if the Axis managed to do this then they deserve a "happy ending"), then all UK forces are removed (but Egypt and Iraq become US minors).

Activating Belgium in case of Holland war... hmm this will make early blitzkrieg less viable, probably needs a lot of testing as could have significant impact on the game.

Post Reply

Return to “MILITARY HISTORY™ Commander - Europe at War : General Discussion”