Franco's Alliance V2.0Beta

[Lebatron]

Jan you misunderstood my use of the word ignorant. I was not referring to his knowledge of WW2. Here in America we sometimes use ignorant to mean rude. Like in "Boy that was ignorant of him to say such a thing." Both of mdh1204 posts sounded rude in the way he expressed his opinion. I didn't say anything to his first one but in his second he pushed me. In particular I didn't like his line "...a pansy-field just because you can't stop yourself MODING..." He understood what I meant when I said he was being ignorant, and he apologized by explaining that he's just a blunt guy and comes off that way. I understand and will read his future posts with that in mind. But mdh1204 you could try to be a little less "New York" in you posts.

[JanSorensen]

Lebatron

Gotcha - sometimes we could all make do with a little less "New York" I suppose - you and I both included.

[Lebatron]

ORIGINAL: mcaryf

Hi Lebatron

Have you also considered the possibility of making Siam a frozen ally of the Japanese? My understanding is that this was closer to reality than Japan invading them.

They could be unfrozen on the turn that Japan either takes or perhaps just attacks Malaya.

Mike

Interesting idea, I havn't considered it. My primary reason for making Spain a frozen ally was to stop the gamey route to Gibraltar. The secondary reason was that it mimics history closer. Making Siam frozen really doesn't address any game flaws. Doing so would be for historical flavor like my secondary reason for making Spain frozen.

The nice thing for Japan is that it doesn't have to pay a supply fee to declare on Siam. Afterward it only has to repair the resource and optionally the rail. Are you suggesting this change to save Japan some repair costs? At a minimum it would save Japan 11 and if the rail was fixed too, then 21.

I'm not even sure this could be done without messing up the free trade with the US. I could give it a try if others think its a cool idea. I'd like to know more about Siam's role in the war if anyone wishes to comment and/or support what Mike said.

[Lebatron]

ORIGINAL: mdh1204

Well, I wouldn't say Germany was incapable of attacking Spain. Afterall, who do you think you are talking about? They declared war on everyone else. Although, making it a frozen ally works for me. My only point, as is ever my only point, is that mods are good if they improve the historical accuracy and realistic war-time functionality of a game. You don't make the ROCK of GIBRALTOR and MALTA a pansy-field just because you can't stop yourself MODING, right? Besides, both targets are captured if you plan for it.

Back many months ago when there was a lot of debates concerning Spain someone once said that in order for Hitler to declar war on Spain, Franco would have had to drive to Berlin and slap Hitler in the face to provoke an attack. That was funny, which is why I remember it. Basically most agreed that when you look at the political situation, Germany would not have declared on Spain and didn't for that matter.

You say a mod can only be good if it "improves the historical accuracy and realistic war-time functionality of a game." Making Spain frozen does exactly that. Because I removed Gibraltar's and Malta's rough terrain, that will not cause the game to play ahistorically. You don't seem to realize we are actually in agreement in our belief that Gibraltar should not fall without great German effort. That rough terrain your gripping about does nothing to save Gibraltar in the standard 1940 scenario because Germany goes through Spain. You really aught to be ripping on the 1940 scenario for allowing that, because it isn't historically accurate and screws up the realistic war-time functionality of the game as you put it. In my mod, if Spain remains frozen the only way to take Gibraltar is by sea. Even without the rough terrain its still very hard. Its also still a fortress in case you thought I may have removed that too. Basically the British would have to blunder to allow the Germans a reasonable chance to take it. When your playing my mod its entirely possible that Gibraltar will never fall. Can that be said of the standard campaign?

Let me quote what Oleg said about this topic long ago. "Rough terrain + forts result in attacker having to have 4:1 to capture the area. Given the miniscule size of these areas, I think their fort + rough benefits were unrealistic, so I decided to remove "rough" attribute (they are still fortified, so now you need 3:1). Gobi desert is example of "rough terrain", Gibraltar and Malta are not, because they're so small, no matter how "rough" they really are, it's marginal given the scale of this game."

In a game like Third Reich, Gibraltar and Malta take 4:1 IIRC. It is designed that way because there is a stacking limit. Only 2 infantry chits are allowed to stack, so the defence is boosted by the addition of a game machanic to make it really hard to take. In WAW there is no stacking limit, so the British can put 5 inf, 3 art, and 3 fighters for instance making the need for rough terrain unesessary. In fact WAW allows Gibraltar to have a very unrealistic defense capacity. By removing rough terrain my mod makes it more realistic than the 1940 secenario does. If 2by3 patched it so that there was a stacking limit at Gibraltar and Malta I would consider replacing the rough terrain. My final decision would depend on the size of the stack limit.

[JanSorensen]

As with all "what-ifs" both sides have merit. So, its more a matter of opinion than right or wrong as far as I am concerned. Considering many of the other things Hitler did do I dont think that attacking Spain is too far fetched. As I recall Hitler did ask Spain to join in the war but the Spanish answer was "sure, we just need x, y and z" which was too much. If Hitler had been in a bad mood I could easily see him saying "screw that - if they arent with me they are against me." As such I would not call either more historical accurate - just different views. As such I think you are off base. Not because your view is wrong - but because you fail to acknowledge that its just one possible view.

[mcaryf]

Hi Lebatron

What actually happened in Siam was that the Japanese landed in Singora on Dec 8th 1941. There was a very brief period of token resistance and then Siam allied itself with the Japanese Empire. The Japanese at a later date actually ceded control of part of their conquered territories in Malaya and French Indo-China to the Siamese. Once the war was obviously lost to Japan in 1944 the Siamese regime was overthrown by a pro-Western one in a way that was I guess rather similar to Italy but there is no doubt that the initial alliance with Japan reflected the real intentions of the Siamese government in 1941.

As you say it does not make much of a difference - in my only real foray as the Japanese so far I have left Siam unconquered as it saves the repair costs and potentially gets in the way for the WALLIES when they want to take Malaya back again. My suggestion was more on the basis of historic accuracy rather than game play.

Mike

[mdh1204]

Whatever - its your mod. Let me know if you fix Gibraltor and Malta and I'd be happy to try it sometime.

[Lebatron]

Ya, and let me know when the 1940 scenario fixes the Gibraltar problem and I might play that.

[mdh1204]

... okay. BTW, Germany never took Gibraltor, so I don't know where you get off thinking there's a problem.
Also, I always take Gibraltor. Its very easy as it is...

[Lebatron]

I think you are confusing yourself. Germany always takes Gibraltar by going though Spain. Thats the problem. I can't make it any more clear for you than that.

[mdh1204]

No, I understand what you are doing. However, I almost never go through Spain to get to Gibraltor.
If the Allies make their defense very strong, then they make it very strong, and that's how it is. It's
not as if you should make Gibraltor more accessible because you opt to make Spain a frozen ally.
Don't you realize that the inherent impregnability of fortified mountains at sea is the reason why
Germany never attacked Gibraltor and Malta? If you want to attack heavily fortified mountains at
sea then you should be willing to pay the price and not pander to some farcical notion of 'balanced
accessibility'. Simply make Spain frozen, and that's it and that's all, and leave the natural defensive
system of geography and fortification in place. Otherwise, you imbalance the game toward some
completely irrelevant notion that these exquisite historical fortifications should be more susceptible
to exploit.

[Daykeras]

I'm confused mdh...

I thought this mod did just make Spain frozen? What are you talking about?

[mdh1204]

If you read the Mod, Daykeras, then you'll understand why I'm making the argument that the Mod's otherwise appealing and potentially greater realism than regular W@W is trumped by over modification. Specifically, Gibraltor and Malta have been stripped of their innate geographical defensive strength. The argument is that if you can't attack Spain, then you should be better able to go through the front door; a concept which of course has no realistic nor historical basis. If the fortifications change were an indictment of the combat systems modifiers, then it would at least have some premise for justification. My position is that the combat system is coherent, and should be left alone.

[Daykeras]

Ok.. I think you worded it better that time.

Yea, I agree. Then again, it's so small that maybe removing rough terrain offsets the fact you can't have 20 divisions of infantry and 5 flak formations on the little island

[mdh1204]

good grief... [8|]

[Daykeras]

Oh come now. A little joking was in order!!!

[Lebatron]

You see, others seem to understand that since there is no stacking limit Gibraltar and Malta can have unrealistically high defenses. If 2by3 did something in the next patch to put a limit of say 2 divisions for these areas, then I would make them rough terrain again.

Anyway its clear to me that you really haven't tried it without the rough terrain. Because your argument that they are now to easy to take are totally baseless. As I said before the British player would have to play pretty poorly to lose Gibraltar via sea invasion. Anytime the Germans move bombers to Italy its a dead giveaway. If the British do nothing about that, they deserve to lose Gibraltar.

[Daykeras]

Besides, sea invasions are always a hassle. Except for the japs it takes 2 ships for every 1 infantry you move in with. By making that the only option it's basicly already rough terrain <3

[mdh1204]

That is a fundamental problem, I'd agree with that. Therein lay a good reason to use a large sized hex grid for a map this scale, and that would allow for stacking limitations of maybe 3-4 or so army groups per hex. But could I garrison Gibraltor and its surrounding land with 500,000+ soldiers and guns? Probably. Malta? Absolutely. So, while a good standard, I don't see stacking as any sort of golden rule.

[mdh1204]

The more I think of it, a stationary garrison would have much higher stacking limitations than a mobile army, and any limitation for fielded armies at this scale would likely not be less than 10 or so army groups, and not counting artillery and AA and aircraft.

No, I believe you are highly self-deceived, and based solely on the same lines of inductive reasoning. The difference in my favor is that you are assuming in advance that there is a problem with the defensive capability of Gibraltor and Malta as reflected within the game, but logically, given the size and scope of Gibraltor, an inordinate amount of troops (well beyond anything you have witnessed) is reasonable. Malta alone, given its current normal peace-time population, is 400,000. So, go figure.

I do understand your reluctance, but f you want to put the game back in a vein closer to reality, put back the mountains. [:-]