Want suggestions to possible future BJR-mod changes

[Peter Stauffenberg]

And, finally, instead of an atlantic ocean-persian gulf sea lane I would implement a transportation loop, editing 3 or 4 sea hexes near of Kuwait, wich it seems to be more aesthetic than the actual sea lane...

This is also on our to-do list. We would like to add the following transport loops:
* Western Africa to the Persian Gulf (always open)
* Red Sea to the Persian Gulf (always open)

And maybe even the following transport loop
* North Sea to the Baltic Sea (controlled by Kiel).

The transport loop going from the Western Africa to the Red Sea should be changed to be always open.

If we can do this then we will remove the sea lane and only keep some sea hexes near Kuwait to simulate the Persian Gulf.

[fiskog]

2. Put some effectiveness penalty on Axis units that enter the Russian winter on turns after the winter starts.

Personally, I can't think of a situation where I've been impacted by this. Do you have a specific example where this has had a significant impact on game?[/quote]

Its gamey to see the axis stopping units at the Russian border late in the year in good weather, then moving into the sub-zero on the following turn with zero bad effect.

[Amicofritz]

Yes, a degree of randomness is needed. Should be doable?

[gerones]

1. Limit a country's embarked ground units to that country's number of surface naval units. Or maybe 1.5X with fractions round up. Or Maybe 1.5 for US, UK, and Germany, and 0.5 for Italy and Russia. In this way building a fleet would build AMPH capacity. There was no way that Germany or Russia could have had a dozen corps afloat at one time.

This is certainly an issue to keep in mind... Let´t think in Sea Lion in 1940. When I see in those AAR posts, all of those germans naval transport units around UK(10 or 12, I don´t remember exactly...) being escorted by only 2 BB and 1 DD, I think something go wrong on this and should be changed... Kriegsmarine in 1940 persuaded Hitler to give up about an amphibous operation in England because they simply couldn´t ship an escort such an army across the English Channel by summer 1940...

[raffo80]

1. Limit a country's embarked ground units to that country's number of surface naval units. Or maybe 1.5X with fractions round up. Or Maybe 1.5 for US, UK, and Germany, and 0.5 for Italy and Russia. In this way building a fleet would build AMPH capacity. There was no way that Germany or Russia could have had a dozen corps afloat at one time.

This is certainly an issue to keep in mind... Let´t think in Sea Lion in 1940. When I see in those AAR posts, all of those germans naval transport units around UK(10 or 12, I don´t remember exactly...) being escorted by only 2 BB and 1 DD, I think something go wrong on this and should be changed... Kriegsmarine in 1940 persuaded Hitler to give up about an amphibous operation in England because they simply couldn´t ship an escort such an army across the English Channel by summer 1940...

Well, i think the risk is to focus too much on stopping sealion (that actually we don't know if would have suceeded since it didn't happen in real life) while none thinks about what happens in '43 and later.

Really, in most of my PBEM i see allies beeing able to invade france with 12-16 corps, tons of navy and air. Historically, they invaded normandy (a very small part of france coast) and it took '44. In '43 they were barely able to invade sicily and south italy (and failed to invade Anzio). And naval bombardements were very uneffective against land units.

My opinion is that since war in real life was won by allies, we all focus only to make the game so that axis almost always lose.

In this game germany can perform sealion with many corps and this is unhistorical.

But also allies (UK+USA) build up is too fast. and either costs for navy (BS and carriers) are too low, or they are too efficient against land targets. I think a "good" player who doesn't waste resources right and left, can perform an overlord in '43 invading almsot all french coast...quite impossible in real life.

[rkr1958]

But also allies (UK+USA) build up is too fast. and either costs for navy (BS and carriers) are too low, or they are too efficient against land targets. I think a "good" player who doesn't waste resources right and left, can perform an overlord in '43 invading almsot all french coast...quite impossible in real life.

I disagree under the BJR mod against an experienced Axis player, who'll have and a healthy Axis reserve for such an occurrence.

[gerones]

Well, i think the risk is to focus too much on stopping sealion (that actually we don't know if would have suceeded since it didn't happen in real life) while none thinks about what happens in '43 and later.

Really, in most of my PBEM i see allies beeing able to invade france with 12-16 corps, tons of navy and air. Historically, they invaded normandy (a very small part of france coast) and it took '44. In '43 they were barely able to invade sicily and south italy (and failed to invade Anzio). And naval bombardements were very uneffective against land units.

My opinion is that since war in real life was won by allies, we all focus only to make the game so that axis almost always lose.

In this game germany can perform sealion with many corps and this is unhistorical.

But also allies (UK+USA) build up is too fast. and either costs for navy (BS and carriers) are too low, or they are too efficient against land targets. I think a "good" player who doesn't waste resources right and left, can perform an overlord in '43 invading almsot all french coast...quite impossible in real life.

Certainly, as an allied player you can perform an overlord in 1943, but by then you should have a large allied navy to escort that operation... About Sea Lion by 1943 and later, Kriegsmarine was then focused on submarine war and an eventual disembark in England was completely not feasible... About an overlord in 1943, with 12-16 corps, as you must know, the only way to get supply is from navy units... And with no amphibious limitiations you could supply such a large army with only 1 naval unit!. I think 2 transport units per surface naval unit ( no subs) would be fine (1,5, as fiskog proposes, seems to be too little...) This way, a german player who attempts a Sea Lion, with 3 surface naval units, would have 6 land units at his disposal for landing them in England...

[raffo80]

But also allies (UK+USA) build up is too fast. and either costs for navy (BS and carriers) are too low, or they are too efficient against land targets. I think a "good" player who doesn't waste resources right and left, can perform an overlord in '43 invading almsot all french coast...quite impossible in real life.

I disagree under the BJR mod against an experienced Axis player, who'll have and a healthy Axis reserve for such an occurrence.

well, i disegree to your disagree. I think many allies players just play "historically" and that's why you can't perform a strong overlord in '43.

If you wonna play a pbem with me, i will proove my point.

[rkr1958]

well, i disegree to your disagree. I think many allies players just play "historically" and that's why you can't perform a strong overlord in '43.

If you wonna play a pbem with me, i will proove my point.

With the BJR mod and tweaks, including the new Country.class file? If this is ok then PM me with your email address and we can get started.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

1. Limit a country's embarked ground units to that country's number of surface naval units. Or maybe 1.5X with fractions round up. Or Maybe 1.5 for US, UK, and Germany, and 0.5 for Italy and Russia. In this way building a fleet would build AMPH capacity. There was no way that Germany or Russia could have had a dozen corps afloat at one time.

2. Put some effectiveness penalty on Axis units that enter the Russian winter on turns after the winter starts.

I think there is a problem with this. Later in the war you will see 10+ surface naval units for each of USA and Britain. It means they can have 15 transports embarked at the same time. If they arrive at the same time you can see 30 units landing in France on the same turn. That is not historical at all.

We have to distinguish between naval transports (moving between friendly ports) and amphibious landing crafts. I think it's important to keep the number of amphibious landing crafts available to each side rather low. The regeneration rate for those amphibious landing crafts should be low as well. The Allies had big fears about their Overlord landing knowing that if it failed then they would have to wait several months before they could try again.

If we're making a house rule then it's important to make a very simple rule so people won't forget about it all the time. Some wrote that it's cheesy that you can embark lots of corps units and sail them to the shore line and then decide to use the amph quota and land where you're not opposed. I don't think that's bad at all considering the non-historical fact that you can't invade an occupied hex in CeaW. If you can't use this strategy then it would be very easy for the defender to side slip his coastal defense units and block the units designated to be ampbhious landing crafts.

We have to keep focus on what we want to achieve here. The goal is to limit the number of units you can get ashore in one turn by invading enemy controlled hexes. Such landings required amphibious landing crafts and the lack of such crafts was the main reason the Allies spent so much time getting into action.

So we decided to make a simple rule saying that the max amph units you have is dependent upon the game year. 1939 = 2 units, 1940-1941 = 3 units, 1942-1943 = 4 units, 1944 = 5 units, 1945 = 6 units

Since we might be able to program the number of available amphs into the CeaW game code then it's possible to maybe make the max number of amphs a function of technology.

One possible formula could be:

Max number of amphs = tech level in surface ships + 1

Britain, Germany and USA start the game with surface ships tech level 1 and would therefore have the max amph capability of 2.
France, Russia and italy start the game with surface ships tech level 0 and would therefore have the max amph capabilit of 1.

This means that Germany should build naval labs and get better surface ships tech in order to increase the max number of amphs. Britain and USA will definitely build a few naval labs and would have tech 3 or so surface ships in 1943. That means max 4 amphs. This would also be a reason for Russia to build at least 1 lab so they can increase their max amphs from 1 to a higher value.

Would it be a good idea to make the max number of amphs a function of tech level in surface ships?

I think the house rule that you would get 1 amph back each turn until you reach the max level is a good one. It means you will spend some time to get full invasion capability if you use all your amphs.

But until such a change can be programmed then I think the max number of amphs being a function of game year is a good solution. It's not easy for the opponent to know your max capability so he can't verify if you not invade too many hexes.

[rkr1958]

CEaW Bug (Vanilla game & w/BJR mod). A French leader remains in the Allied build que well after the fall of France. Is this something worth fixing? Is this something that's even possible to fix at our level of being able to change CEaW? It should only be an irritant; but I'll know for sure in 11 turns. In terms of the game it's 6/27/1940 and France fell on 4/28/1940.

[gerones]

I think there is a problem with this. Later in the war you will see 10+ surface naval units for each of USA and Britain. It means they can have 15 transports embarked at the same time. If they arrive at the same time you can see 30 units landing in France on the same turn. That is not historical at all.

If they have 10 surface naval units they could embark 15 land units but as you must know USA-Britain in 1943-1944 may operate in two or three scenarios at the same time (France, Italy, North Africa) spreading their forces... This way, if you have built a well-balanced allied army (with air, sea and ground units), it would be strange to have 30 ground allied units prepared to disembark in France, and instead of this you would have 14-16 ground units in England and the other ones in other scenarios (Italy, North Africa).

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I think there is a problem with this. Later in the war you will see 10+ surface naval units for each of USA and Britain. It means they can have 15 transports embarked at the same time. If they arrive at the same time you can see 30 units landing in France on the same turn. That is not historical at all.

If they have 10 surface naval units they could embark 15 land units but as you must know USA-Britain in 1943-1944 may operate in two or three scenarios at the same time (France, Italy, North Africa) spreading their forces... This way, if you have built a well-balanced allied army (with air, sea and ground units), it would be strange to have 30 ground allied units prepared to disembark in France, and instead of this you would have 14-16 ground units in England and the other ones in other scenarios (Italy, North Africa).

The Allies would have a lot of air / land units they could place on transports. I'm not saying they would place 30 units on transports, but they would certainly place 10-20 units on transports to be sure to land in France in force in 1944. You want to place so many units in France eventually because you want to establish a beachhead and then send in reinforcements. But if you don't have a limitation to amphs then you can just let ALL land units destined for France end up in coastal hexes and land all you can. There is no way the Axis player can hope to contain such an invasion.

In the real war the Allies launched the biggest invasion in history and still only landed on a narrow front section in the Normandy. They were stuck in the coastal are for a month before they could open up the beachhead with Operation Cobra and then rush to take Cherbourg to get port supply. There is no way the Allies could land alon the entire Channel coast and capture Brest and Cherbourg on the first turn.

My experience is that when the Allies decide to launch Overlord then MOST of their navy and airforce is located near the invasion area. You still have some air and naval units in the Med, but you don't have to use the navy as sub hunters anymore. So you could send in a huge force unless there were some rules limiting your invasion capability.

Just one question to all of you. Have you ever seen a failed 1944 Allied Overlord invasion in CeaW? I haven't. Eisenhower was very worried about the invasion and he feared the entire invasion could be crushed at the beaches. So there should definitely be a risk that the invasion can fail if it's not planned properly.

It's even more important to limit Sealion in some way so the Axis can't send 10-12 land units across the North Sea or the Channel and land in force. With the house rules the Axis player can only land 3 units on the first turn and then use the Luftwaffe to kill the British who try to contain the invasion area. It will be costly and time consuming. If the British decide to only build garrisons or infantry to block the coastal hexes then that's ok because it will hamper them later in the game. The real British didn't prepare so well for Sealion so it was a real threat. If the British had prepared the way they should then Sealion shouldn't have much chance of succeeding.

A similar situation occured in Norway. It was only because of the Norwegian lack of preparation the Germans got ashore so easily in Weserübüng and captured Norway after 2 months of fighting. Had Norway mobilized then the Germans could easily have failed the entire invasion. It proves how few naval units the Axis had for the invasion of Norway. It was a BIG gamble and the Germans knew it very well. We need to create similar situations in CeaW. Invasions shouldn't be something you just do on impulse. You need to prepare well for them to have a chance to get ashore and win the upcoming battles.

[rkr1958]

well, i disegree to your disagree. I think many allies players just play "historically" and that's why you can't perform a strong overlord in '43.

If you wonna play a pbem with me, i will proove my point.

With the BJR mod and tweaks, including the new Country.class file? If this is ok then PM me with your email address and we can get started.

6th game started! At least I'm playing the Axis this time (2 as the Axis and 4 as the Allies).

[Amicofritz]

With the MOD placement of the port in Oslo, German corps are doomed to attack out of supply, it seems. Am I wrong? Maybe the game needs
some provision for enabling air supply? Stalingrad, anybody? Korsun pocket? Borger?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

With the MOD placement of the port in Oslo, German corps are doomed to attack out of supply, it seems. Am I wrong? Maybe the game needs
some provision for enabling air supply? Stalingrad, anybody? Korsun pocket? Borger?

No. There is a very easy way to take out Norway. You send 2 transports to the Norwegian coast line. One will land southeast of Oslo (in the hex we got from the Swedes compared to the vanilla game). The other will land southwest of Oslo. 2 tac bombers in Denmark will bombard the Oslo garrison. A German surface naval unit will be placed in the sea hex adjacent to both landing areas. That will provide supply level 1 so the German infantry units can move next turn.

This naval unit is quite vulnerable and your only supply source until Oslo falls so it should be protected by your other naval unit and maybe a sub or two.

Next turn you use the bombers to deplete Oslo further and then both infantry units can attack Oslo directly.

I live in Oslo and know for a fact that Oslo had a substantial port during WW2. So Slitherine took away the port for playing reasons. That doesn't feel right. The fix was rather easy. You just give one Swedish hex southeast of Oslo to Norway. This hex is located in the Svinesund/Halden area so it could just be Norwegian. With this change the Germans can land 2 units near Oslo and taking Oslo is a cakewalk.

The port in Oslo is located where the fortress Oscarsborg is situated. We all know that the German landing into Oslo was halted due to this fortress. It sank the heavy cruiser Blücher and the German fleet had to temporarily turn and wait for the Luftwaffe to bombard the fortress. The surviving troops landed in coastal hexes southwest of Oslo. The main reason Oslo fell so early was because the Germans managed to fly troops to Fornebu airport and land at the airport unopposed. These troops quickly took control of the airport and ensured more troops could be flown in. These troops later marched into Oslo and paraded on Oslo's main street (Karl Johan's gate). The tragedy was that if the Norwegians had driven e. g. a few lorries to the airstrip then the Germans could not have landed and Oslo wouldn't have fallen so quickly.

But the troops that landed on Fornebu weren't strong enough to pursue the Norwegians northwards as the King and Government flew towards Elverum. They had to wait for the main invasion ships that were halted at Oscarsborg. So the sinking of Blücher gave the King and Government a few hours head start and they managed to escape to Elverum in time. The Germans bombarded their escape route, but eventually they arrived in Tromsø and sailed for London, fighting from there. The Norwegian gold reserve was also saved because of this.

So placing the port in Oslo simulates that the Germans must land south of Oslo and spend a little time before they capture the capital. It simulates the vulnerability of the invasion because it's dependent upon naval supply for 2 turns. Since Norway surrenders after the fall of Oslo in CeaW you don't have to invade other places like Narvik, Trondheim, Bergen, Stavanger, Egersund, Kristiansand etc. The real Germans had to invade all these places and faced British opposition in several of them. Most famous is the battles of Narvik. Supported by British, French and Polish troops the Allies almost annihilated the Germans there. The Germans had to flee to the mountains and had to cross the border to Sweden to hide. It was only after the Allied troops were withdrawn to France that the Germans got on the offensive again and recaptured Narvik. The Norwegians had no chance to fight on their own.

But despite that the Norwegians held out for 2 months. Hegra fortress near the Værnes airport east of Trondheim was the last to surrender to the Germans in June 1940. Operation Weserübüng came at a heavy price for the Germans. I read that half the German navy was either sunk or damaged after Weserübüng so they were in no condition to support a future Sealion a few months later.

[Amicofritz]

That will provide supply level 1 so the German infantry units can move next turn.


Yes, but if the attack fails, both units will be OOS next turn, right?
I quite agree that Oslo should have a port, off course. Anyway, the possibility of supplying units from the air would enhance the game (the Mod!).
Thx, Stauffenberg.
Hitler knew well the sorry state of Norway's defense, that's why he dared attack. The Germans were in fact shocked at the degree of resistance they met, in spite of it all, in Norway.

[rkr1958]

That will provide supply level 1 so the German infantry units can move next turn.


Yes, but if the attack fails, both units will be OOS next turn, right?

The will still have supply level 1 provided the BB, or DD, fleet stays where it is. You don't need to be adjacent to the fleet to receive supply from it. You just need to be able to trace an unbroken path of controlled hexes to it.

[gerones]

In the real war the Allies launched the biggest invasion in history and still only landed on a narrow front section in the Normandy. They were stuck in the coastal are for a month before they could open up the beachhead with Operation Cobra and then rush to take Cherbourg to get port supply. There is no way the Allies could land alon the entire Channel coast and capture Brest and Cherbourg on the first turn.

My experience is that when the Allies decide to launch Overlord then MOST of their navy and airforce is located near the invasion area. You still have some air and naval units in the Med, but you don't have to use the navy as sub hunters anymore. So you could send in a huge force unless there were some rules limiting your invasion capability.

Just one question to all of you. Have you ever seen a failed 1944 Allied Overlord invasion in CeaW? I haven't. Eisenhower was very worried about the invasion and he feared the entire invasion could be crushed at the beaches. So there should definitely be a risk that the invasion can fail if it's not planned properly.

Even tech surface ships level +1= max. number of amphibious landings per turn is a fairly appropriate house rule, this way we don´t keep in mind you could have reached 4 or 5 tech surface ships level with only 1 BB. That would means that you could land 5 or 6 units with such a short navy... There should be a relationship between having a large navy and amphibious capability...

[gerones]

But the troops that landed on Fornebu weren't strong enough to pursue the Norwegians northwards as the King and Government flew towards Elverum. They had to wait for the main invasion ships that were halted at Oscarsborg. So the sinking of Blücher gave the King and Government a few hours head start and they managed to escape to Elverum in time. The Germans bombarded their escape route, but eventually they arrived in Tromsø and sailed for London, fighting from there. The Norwegian gold reserve was also saved because of this.

But despite that the Norwegians held out for 2 months. Hegra fortress near the Værnes airport east of Trondheim was the last to surrender to the Germans in June 1940. Operation Weserübüng came at a heavy price for the Germans. I read that half the German navy was either sunk or damaged after Weserübüng so they were in no condition to support a future Sealion a few months later.

These heavy losses taken by Kriegsmarine in Norway make us think that a Sea Lion operation was not feasible by summer 1940 and probably it would have been a disaster with a much stronger opponent than Norway forces as Royal Navy was... In CEAW, you could send a corp unit to Norway as historically happened but I think only a few players do this...