Clash of the Mortals (Allied Major Victory)

[rkr1958]

[Diplomaticus]

Too bad about those 2 BB's near Morocco. If he's wise, he'll sink them both in port.

[rkr1958]

[zechi]

As the others already pointed the presentation of your AAR is great and its a good read too!

I wonder why your opponent still seems to want to get to Casablanca. I don't see any advantage for the Axis in this respect.

[rkr1958]

Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact 2.

Let me know what you think and help me iron out the details. We're looking for an historical variant that plays out with both sides having a reasonable chance of victory.

I'm really enjoying our cat and mouse game in North Africa and the Middle East. I think the community is also enjoying this historical variant in my AAR too. My impression; base on my analysis of the game (which may be totally and completely wrong) is that when the Soviets activate in May 1942 that the situation for you in both the Middle East and in Poland will start to deteriorate for you rather quickly in those two areas. If you have a plan in place to contain the Soviets or feel that this analysis is totally off base then we can just continue on as we are; but if not then I think I have what's an intriguing and fun offer to make for our game. That is, a Nazi-Soviet Pact 2. If interested please read on ...

I think our game is taking an interesting, and actual, historically possible variant direction. That is, Germany decides to take out France and capture all of North Africa including the Middle East while keeping the Soviet Union neutral. In order to keep the Soviet Union neutral and allow the axis to focus soley on the UK and USA I propose a renegotiation of the Nazi-Soviet pact every May, starting in May 1942. If the Soviets conditions are met then they for their part will agree to remain "neutral" for one year (e.g., May '42-'43). In this way, the axis can concentrate on the western allies; but will still have to worry about the Russians. Every May, the Soviets will come up with a new set of conditions that the axis must agree to for them to remain neutral for another year. Interested (or intrigued) then read on

Nazi-Soviet Pact 2 (May 8, 1942 - April 13, 1943): Soviet terms: They get Finland and Persia. Any German or Italian forces there are free to leave provided they leave as soon as possible and by the quickest route possible. Soviet guarantee: They will remain neutral which means that they will not attack any axis forces outside of those area. However; the Soviets will continue to mobilize and prepare for war with Germany and Italy in case their terms for the Nazi-Soviet Pact 3 (May 3, 1943 - April 27, 1944) are rejected. The terms of this (pact 3) or any other future pact will not be made known until its time to renew the pact. I will say though that they were never contain demands for any territory in German occupied Poland, Germany, Italy, France, Libya, Egypt or German occupied French North Africa.

Also, like the original Nazi-Soviet pact I will agree to the condition that the Soviets have to abide by the pact for the year it's agreed too; but that the axis can break the pact anytime they wish by attacking Soviet forces.

What do you think? Am I crazy?

On a practical note, when we say give the Russians Finland and Persia, I assume you mean "allow the Russians a free hand in Finland and Persia, with no Axis intervention (no human player moving/operating home country units) and that any Axis forces deployed (either by computer programming or accidental placement) must be removed by the fastest practical means". ?

Actually, with respect to Finland I would think it'd be fair for you to use Finnish troops, and their air unit, to defend as best as you could there. This, would also include repairs as you see fit. I think the Soviets could take them in 1942; but not without a fight. With respect to Persia, since it's already allied then this would mean that no axis forces would enter the country. However; since it belongs to the UK, I think to compensate for the PP's that should go to Russia for it, the axis would allow the Murmansk convoys to go through unmolested to Russia as long as the Nazi-Pact 2 (or later) is in force. This would allow the Germans to focus their u-boats on UK and USA convoys and targets only.

Now to keep Germany honest in their preparation for war with Russia, the Russian demands every year will become more "humiliating" but never include demands for any territory in German occupied Poland, Germany, Italy, France, Libya, Egypt or German occupied French North Africa. And the Russians would never attack any axis units (other than Finnish) in any other territory as long as they aren't in Soviet owned or promised territory.

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Germany looks extremely weak regarding land forces. Just 10 corps units? Some are in Iraq or Algeria. So I wonder how strong the Axis forces are holding the front line vs Russia. I guess a Russian major offensive right from the start can do the trick here.

Maybe the western Allies can help putting pressure on the Germans by making a landing in France during 1942?

[rkr1958]

Germany looks extremely weak regarding land forces. Just 10 corps units? Some are in Iraq or Algeria. So I wonder how strong the Axis forces are holding the front line vs Russia. I guess a Russian major offensive right from the start can do the trick here.

Maybe the western Allies can help putting pressure on the Germans by making a landing in France during 1942?

Borger, check out the details of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact II (post above and in viewtopic.php?p=333401#p333401 )

In reality, if I went right after Leonard with the Russians in May 1942, I don't think he would last to the end of 1943. So I thought we'd try this variant where the Russians remain "neutral" for another year. Though they will be going after Finland and are guaranteed that all Murmansk convoys will get through.

Also, I plan they plan to capture Sweden and Norway as a little extra bonus. Though; that's not mentioned in the details of Pact II, it's not forbidden either. In May 1943 we'll renegotiate the Pact (i.e., Pact III). I will say that to keep the Russians "neutral" from May 1943 - April 1944 will require a high price: like the Balkans including Rumania and Bulgaria and the Iraq.

I know ... I've probably taken a sure ultimate victory and turned it into a crushing ultimate loss. But I thought this might be fun and interesting to try. And I do solicite comments from all on this as if you might find this interesting too and if so, what sort of demands would you recommend the Soviets make?

In way we're playing a 3 person game with me playing 2 of the 3 persons.

[rkr1958]

I have to say that this role playing that you see played out in the last two slides is (was) fun. I'm a bit surprise the Leonard rejected my offer for the Soviets to remain sort of "neutral" for another year. Personally, I thought I was negotiating from a point of total strength and he'd really have no choice but to accept my proposal. He must really be hurting for oil; but even so I thought my proposal was a very good deal even without dividing up Persian. Well, all this is mute anyway. Russia will now directly go after the axis in Poland and in the Middle East. Though, I've delayed building additional armor corps and have a large stockpile of PP's because I thought there would be no chance for him rejecting my original proposal. Oh well ... it's off to war with the axis for the Russians.

[Cybvep]

That's good. Now you have the opportunity score a great victory .

[rkr1958]

[joerock22]

I don't think I would've been as flexible as you about this, Ronnie. I do understand why Leonard is angry, but it's his own fault for not playtesting. If you are going to rely on that strategy to keep the Allies out of the Med, then you had better make sure you know what happens when an Allied DD is surprised. Now, it is basically you who is penalized, and you weren't the one who dropped the ball!

It's very difficult, if not impossible, to know every rule or game mechanic in GS. But if you miss one, you don't ask to replay. You learn from it and move on. If it's really bad, maybe work out a solution so the game can continue. Like, maybe the Allies could agree to be inactive for 1-2 turns in the Med. That would offer some compensation. But replaying turns is almost always a bad idea, because crap like this can happen. You end up rewarding the person who didn't know the rule and penalizing the innocent party.

[rkr1958]

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't envy the Germans in the east when the Russians storm towards Berlin.

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]