Any evidence Stalin would have allowed UK/USA units in USSR?

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

Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core

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

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:57 pm

The remedy for this would be to allow Canada to become a major power if UK is defeated. Then units can be built in Canada and the CW is not out of the game.

I think that what we should actually do is to think of the UK units as Commonwealth units (similar to World in Flames). That means you have to defeat all of CW to wipe that major power out of the game.

UK is in fact defeated in GS v2.0 if you manage to take both London and Liverpool. That means you can't place reinforcements anymore in England or Scotland until one of these cities are liberated. So you manage to pacify the British isles except for partisans. I think that is actually much more historical than actually wiping the entire CW out of the game if London / Liverpool (or Glasgow) are captured by the Axis.

I claim that even the best Allied players can't stop Sealion if the Axis players go all-in. The Axis simply have too much production compared to UK in 1940. When Italy joins they can help (ignoring Libya for awhile) and then Liverpool falls in addition to London and no more UK. That would really have opened up a big weakness in GS that would make many Axis players to go for Sealion.

Many Axis players don't do it now because you won't defeat the CW by taking England and they know they have to pay the price in Russia later.

Rhialto
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by Rhialto » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:21 pm

OK..... so does the game engine actually allow a prohibition on CW units entering Russian territory? If you can't, how about a massive effectiveness penalty to all UK units once London and Liverpool fall? That would be easy to rationalize (loss of critical supplies and parts from the UK, and morale loss) and could prevent the Royal Russian Airforce or similar transfers of forces to Russia from being effective enough to make Barbarossa impossible.

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

Post by rkr1958 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:38 am

Rhialto wrote:OK..... so does the game engine actually allow a prohibition on CW units entering Russian territory?
It does now. Well the GSv2.01 beta does and I suspect very strongly that the official GSv2.1 will too. :D

TotalerKrieg
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:35 pm

Post by TotalerKrieg » Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:56 am

rkr1958 wrote:
Rhialto wrote:OK..... so does the game engine actually allow a prohibition on CW units entering Russian territory?
It does now. Well the GSv2.01 beta does and I suspect very strongly that the official GSv2.1 will too. :D
I admit this is a reasonable course of action even if I don't personally agree with it. Will the SU be able to land units in Western Allied occupied lands in the updated mod? This seems to me even more historically implausible than the Western Allies landing in the SU and probably should also be stopped. How will it work if the Western Allies and the Soviets invade a country like Turkey together and the country surrenders to the Soviets? Will the Western Allies just lose their units?

I noticed that the response to the convoy limitation upon fall of England idea was overwhelmingly negative and assume that it is rejected. Can someone from the GS team post what the verdict is on the Spanish activation upon fall of England proposal or if it is under consideration?

Thanks. I feel for you GS team guys. This kind of ridiculous game play must drive you crazy... :)

TotalerKrieg
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:35 pm

Post by TotalerKrieg » Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:59 am

pk867 wrote:
They wanted to send a ground division, but because of political reasons they had to switch to just airmen.
Can you provide a reference for this statement? I would be interested in reading about this.

Thanks!

Plaid
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1969
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:16 pm

Post by Plaid » Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:45 am

Stauffenberg wrote:
The Germans will get 3 labs in all except naval quite early in 1941. The Allies can't counter that even if they try to focus on one particular tech for each country. The Germans advance as fast as the Allies until 1943 where you can get 4 labs in an area. Even Germany can do that to maintain the tech advantage in an area until the tech in that area caps out.

So I don't see how you can exploit the focus of tech into one area due the be above mentioned limitations.
But allies can build very same (3 labs early 1941) with every power for one (different) area at least. It will be parity with germans, and its more then enough, since allies have much more PPs at their hands.
For example allies can focus and build infantry with UK and tanks with USA, completely neglecting the opposite. It will result in many high tech units at low costs (remember how expensive are this last labs in 1941 for germans).

Our anti-blob rules are only partly effective, since force of 12 USA high tech tanks in early 1942 (its no penalties at all) is nice horde, which will give axis a lot of fun when landed in france (supported with 12 UK mech, for example).

Players need some sort of motivation to build all-around realistic armies, under current rules the very opposite is the most rewarding, it is the problem.

richardsd
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:30 am

Post by richardsd » Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:05 am

Certainly the Allies get an advantage in being able to 'optimise' labs accross the US and UK.

Maybe the easiest lab solution is to apply a step restriction, that is you can't move to step 2 untill all labs are at step 1 (or some similar mechanism)?

I think though this is a question of fundamental design - are we 'simulating' or giving 'freedom'

zechi
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:42 pm

Post by zechi » Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:41 am

Plaid wrote:
Stauffenberg wrote:
The Germans will get 3 labs in all except naval quite early in 1941. The Allies can't counter that even if they try to focus on one particular tech for each country. The Germans advance as fast as the Allies until 1943 where you can get 4 labs in an area. Even Germany can do that to maintain the tech advantage in an area until the tech in that area caps out.

So I don't see how you can exploit the focus of tech into one area due the be above mentioned limitations.
But allies can build very same (3 labs early 1941) with every power for one (different) area at least. It will be parity with germans, and its more then enough, since allies have much more PPs at their hands.
For example allies can focus and build infantry with UK and tanks with USA, completely neglecting the opposite. It will result in many high tech units at low costs (remember how expensive are this last labs in 1941 for germans).

Our anti-blob rules are only partly effective, since force of 12 USA high tech tanks in early 1942 (its no penalties at all) is nice horde, which will give axis a lot of fun when landed in france (supported with 12 UK mech, for example).

Players need some sort of motivation to build all-around realistic armies, under current rules the very opposite is the most rewarding, it is the problem.
But is a force of 12 US high tech tanks in 1942 realistic? This alone will cost the US 880 PP (US starts with 1 ARM). In addition the Allied player will have to pay for the transports, eventually the excess of transport capacity and the labs to max out the ARM techs. This US force will have little air support and it could be difficult to ship then without interference of SUBs. Last but not least ARM can be easily blocked by Axis forces as amphibious invasions are not possible with them. Perhaps this can be done in 1943?

The British will also not be able to sustain an offensive in the MED, produce FTR air support for the Soviets, max out LABs and produce a significant invasion force. I do not see how this could be possible even if you totally neglect any defense of the British isles and do not care for the RN. I would like to see your game with Morris at least a few turns more. It will be interesting how he will play with the US.

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

Post by pk867 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:44 am

To TotalerKrieg,

That info was in the article you provided in your in post link about the French Airmen.

This is the first and second sentence under the first picture. Quote- "On the 22nd June 1941, German troops invaded The Soviet Union. General de Gaulle, keen to see the Free French (France Libre) represented on all fronts, considered sending a French division to Russia. However, problems of both a material and political nature forced him to revise his plans. In agreement with the Soviet government, he decided to send a French fighter group to fight alongside the Red Army on the Eastern Front."

pk867

Kragdob
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Poland

Post by Kragdob » Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:32 pm

I do not agree that lab specialization is an issue. This is game and you should be allowed to max British in AIR, Germans in ARM and USSR in INF.

The problem is that conquering UK should be devastating for the Allies. Right now it is not. From my perspective it is barely profitable even if England is completely undefended and can be conquered within couple of turns. Even if you need to fight like 10 GARs only (which is my case) you need to spend at least 200 PP for transport and repairs which is ~20% of German preparation for Barbarossa in 1941. Not to mention that it is very little profitable if it means that Germany delay Barbarossa to 1942.

I was not an accident that British didn't do any major operation in Africa till 1942 and Germans was in good supply there by 1942. This was because all effort was spent to defend the Islands.

This should be happening in the game. By the time Germans launch Barbarossa Western Allies should fear German forces and packing UK as much as possible to defend the possible invasion. Allied Player should maximize chances that UK is not conquered as if it is the effect would be devastating. This would also rationalize investment at least in 3 branches for UK (INF, FTR, INDustry).

Right now it is not and Allied Player can do things like 4xFTRs in USSR in 1941 or sacrificing whole BEF in France or sending supplies to Africa to land on Sicily in 1942 (and should be rather sending forces from Africa to UK).

Couple of my ideas (some already appeared):

1. Penalty from land units missing on the Islands -10% for each unit missing AFTER fall of France (Paris).

Prior to that the war was expected to be mirror of the first one – fought mainly on the continent with extensive UK participation. Fall of France was a big shock for the Europe and hughe German success.

2. British Manforce is reduced to 25%.

Most of recruits were british. This would urge Allies to liberate British first which I think would be more historical.

3. Germans get full prod froduction from the isles and +xxx or yyy% from Allied oil stockpile (after fall of London).

With British Islands captured Germany would conquer huge part of British economy and supplies.

4. Spain joins the Axis.

Franco sees total German domination in Europe and joins the party.

5. SU convoy redirected to Canada.

USA decides that in such circumstances help is needed more for Briths than Soviets.

6. +20% from efficiency loss for any minor attacked after fall of London.

For many minor countries the only ‘bright light in 1940/1941 was that England is still figting (with success!) the devil. So fall of England (with US far far away) would mean no real hope (Russia was considered more like threat not real ally) for Europe.

7. +10%/+20% to Russia efficiency loss (after Barbarossa) after fall of London.

No hope for ‘second front’ – demanded by Stalin - which was keeping Soviets morale up during 1941/1942.

Rhialto
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by Rhialto » Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:12 pm

Kragdob wrote: This should be happening in the game. By the time Germans launch Barbarossa Western Allies should fear German forces and packing UK as much as possible to defend the possible invasion. Allied Player should maximize chances that UK is not conquered as if it is the effect would be devastating. This would also rationalize investment at least in 3 branches for UK (INF, FTR, INDustry).

Right now it is not and Allied Player can do things like 4xFTRs in USSR in 1941 or sacrificing whole BEF in France or sending supplies to Africa to land on Sicily in 1942 (and should be rather sending forces from Africa to UK).
Stauffenberg shot this down earlier on the grounds that if penalties for losing the UK are made greater then Sealion would become the axis focus and since it can't be stopped if the Axis commit to it, this would become a shortcut to winning the game for the axis. To which I would respond that historians now consider that Sealion was never really feasible - I can dig up the references and reasons why if needed. Basically it comes down to inadequate German transports and supremacy of the Royal Navy. So the game would need to reflect this. Possibilities include:
1. Reduce Axis transport points and amphibious capability in 1939, 1940 and 1941.
2. Make transports even more vulnerable to naval or air attack
3. Increase effectiveness reduction of transported troops

Personally, I would prefer that this NOT be done as it will make the game less interesting due to removal of Sealion. I would rather raise the stakes as Kragdob proposes; force the allied player to defend the UK properly. This can be done by using one or more of the various penalties proposed. If he does, then the axis commitment will have to be so great that he will lose in Russia.

To Kragdob's list you can add:

8. Any one of several CW countries could become neutral on thefall of London: Malta, Gibraltar, Egypt, Syria....

dagtwo
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:53 pm
Location: Surrey, BC Canada

England and Balance Issues

Post by dagtwo » Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:14 pm

While I tend to agree that the fall of England seems to be treated less than historically by the game the conquest of England is a bit too easy for Germany also. How to balance these two things?

Would a combination of increased reward for the Germans (Spanish Allies, for example) and increased difficulty (lowered transport limit for the Germans for example) do the trick? Or is this too much tinkering at this point?

Kragdob
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Poland

Post by Kragdob » Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:02 pm

Rhialto,

SeaLion was not possible, but British didn't know it in 1940. It was panic time after the fall of France.

If British Player knew that Germans cannot launch SeaLion than you have the same thing as happening now.

So you should make it possible but in most cases German Player should not decide to do it due to low probability of success.

I do not believe that SeaLion is easy for Germans. From most AARs I see it is due to British overcommitment in France/sending early reinforcements to Africa (RN and/or ground units). For Brits you can easily buy additional 2 INF + FTR by 1940 + you can ship troops from Iraq and with RN placed wisely landing and taking Britain will be huge & risky endavour which with low prob.

SeaLion possible in the game is sacrifice of historical reality for playability. You have the same situation with battle of France & Barbarossa so I do not see the reason into going for making SeaLion impossible by default. I this Allied Player and his actions should make it impossible.

From my perspective it would bring new thrilling twist into the early game (Sealion => risky but very profitable with Allied Player in incertainity of his fate by 1941).

ferokapo
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:09 am

Post by ferokapo » Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:23 pm

I recommend to leave Sealion as it is now. Indeed, it is much easier for the Axis than it would have been historically, mainly because the Germans had neither any equipment for nor any experience with amphibious operations. On the other hand, I think the implications of a successful Sealion would have also been greater than they are in the game.

So, in order to make it historically more accurate, it would need to cost much more. To balance this, the UK/Commonwealth would have to get crippled completely by a succussful Sealion.

The implication for game play would be, that the game is decided in late 1940 if Sealion is attempted. Either a disastrous defeat for the Axis, or decisive weakening of the Allies would be the result.

Do we want that? The strength of the current approach is that Sealion is an interesting alternative strategy, and its outcome significantly influences the remainder of the game, but unless the results are extreme, it still allows both side to win in the end.

Kragdob
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Poland

Post by Kragdob » Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:11 pm

eisenkopf,

The problem with current balance is that winning SeaLion is pyrrhic victory for Germans as it does not hurts Allies that much and in many cases hinders the Axis (short term loss and gain comes only in long term). Clever Player (like Morris) can turn this short term loss into the failure that Axis would never recover from.

Fall of London should be at least huge morale drop (similar to that of Soviets upon Barbarossa) + Spain joining + English manpower reduced considerably.

zechi
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:42 pm

Post by zechi » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:04 am

From my point of view the main advantage of Sealion and capturing Britain is to prevent the Allies from using Britain as an air and naval base early in the war and later in the war as the starting point for the invasion of France. Without Britain the western Allies will not be able to do any strategic bombings for a long time. A direct invasion of France from the US is also a lot more risky, as the invasion force will not have much air cover (only CVs). A succesful Sealion will give you more time in the west or at least make any moves in the west for the Allies harder. Of course the Axis will be weaker in the east, which can be devastating if you do not play carefully, but any Axis player who goes for Sealion should know this.

In addition Sealion gives the Axis a nice boost of PP and of course reduce the British PP income significantly. However, these are only nice additions. The main reason for Sealion is to capture the biggest aircraft carrier in the Atlantic :wink:

richardsd
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:30 am

Post by richardsd » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:10 am

you also don't need Norway if you don't want it

but the biggest draw back is that whilst you reduce the PP's from Britain, its a lot harder to stop convoys

Plaid
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1969
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:16 pm

Post by Plaid » Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:16 am

Its very argueable, that Sealion add any single PP for germans.
You need a) ship lots of forces to conquer isles b) ship them back for further campaigns c)build garrisons d)ship garrisons to the isles
Together with casualties owning of Britain for couple of years will not even pay back this expenses. And if you keep there only garrisons, it will be very easy for allies to liberate the place, so you need some real forces, which will not fight in actual campaigns and can be also considered "wasted" PPs.

Plaid
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1969
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:16 pm

Post by Plaid » Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:18 am

I do not agree that lab specialization is an issue. This is game and you should be allowed to max British in AIR, Germans in ARM and USSR in INF.
Specialization is an issue, because allies collect ~3 times more PPs then germans and with specialization allied units are even to german one. Its pretty obvious, who will win this way?

ferokapo
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:09 am

Post by ferokapo » Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:47 am

Plaid wrote:Its very argueable, that Sealion add any single PP for germans.
You need a) ship lots of forces to conquer isles b) ship them back for further campaigns c)build garrisons d)ship garrisons to the isles
Together with casualties owning of Britain for couple of years will not even pay back this expenses. And if you keep there only garrisons, it will be very easy for allies to liberate the place, so you need some real forces, which will not fight in actual campaigns and can be also considered "wasted" PPs.
I don't think that Sealion should add any net PP's to Germany. The Axis looses some time and strength for Barbarossa, but gains (as others have already noted):

- forward bases to intercept Russian convoys
- aircover for German subs in the North Atlantic
- no need to invade Norway (neither to attack Russian convoys, nor to protect iron shipments)
- reduction of PPs for Britain
- need to liberate the British isles, with the results of:
- delayed bombing campaign on Germany (often, Ruhr valley and Essen are already bombed to 0 in 1942, reducing Axis income by 12 PPs/turn)
- less aggressive player in the Med, possibly extending Italian survival
- possibly delayed Overlord

I find these things reward enough.

The answer to Allied research and unit specialization is to do the same for Germany. Basically, Germany needs only Fixed Defence/Anti-Tank, Dog Fight and Industry for building good INF and FTR to defend against Allied offensives. Any Axis research in offensive Tech (all ARM techs, Air tech other than Dog Fight, Artillery for INF, all Naval Tech, Organization is already high, and Radar is not so extremely useful) is actually rather a luxury, because it will not be researched until Germany is on the defense anyway. It makes for a less interesting game, for sure, but the Axis can counter Allied over-specialization by doing just the same.

Post Reply

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