Balance of Play Issues

[Lucky1]

One thing that has bothered me is the very large USA WR penalties for attacking Vichy (-5) or Italy (-10) before the USA is at war.

Although I personally believe that America would have had different reactions depending which country's neutrality was violated (Monroe Doctrine, anyone), I would would not be adverse to removing this differential (making it consistent across the board). Given the amount of times I have been burned by Italian dropping out at the least opportune moment, I would probably not consider attacking Italy for fear of losing the ability to trigger Italian surrender. Attacking Vichy before the US enters the war might be a bit risky as well, keeping in mind that if Britain still holds the Mid East the troops will likely be needed there. If she has lost the MidEast, her troops are probably needed back in the Isles or in India/Australia. Plus, attacking Vichy hands Germany 5-6 more units that can be used elsewere if the WA are not in a position to threaten them directly. Too, would not an attack on Vichy push Spain into the war on the side of Germany? (not sure on this one - I know from experience that the inverse is true.) Anyhow, I guess I am saying that I have no objection to making things consistent.

[WanderingHead]

On replacing -5 WR penalty for attacking Vichy with a -die(2) penalty for attacking any neutral ...

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
My thinking ... is that if Germany is focusing on the WA then the UK alone would not try a landing in N Africa. If Germany focuses on Russia, the UK will have some leeway to try something in N Africa.

Indeed, even when there is zero political penalty (after USA enters) how often is VNA captured?

Latest I can find quickly in AARs ... (some of these are squinting at strat map)
Fa 44 VNA still neutral - fb.asp?m=1990685
Wi 45 VNA still neutral - fb.asp?m=1867767
Su 45 VNA still neutral - fb.asp?m=1808652

It just seems unlikely to me that a hard pressed WA would want to attack Vichy before the US enters, unless there is the combination of the desperation from the squeeze on Russia and the capability from the lack of focus on WA. Changing this Vichy WR penalty feels very right to me. Decent for play, more consistent rule, more realistic (IMO) political modelling (really, what would Churchill have done?).

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
This is what would happen as often as an invasion of Portugal or Spain is currently used as invasion target (instead of France!) as Vichy would be much easier to be invaded due to the smaller garrison.

In Global Glory? GG has some disincentives for Portugal or Spain (insta-militia, and if Portugal is taken by the WA then Spain will tend to deploy more units and bump towards Germany).

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
would not an attack on Vichy push Spain into the war on the side of Germany?

That's a good point. Attacking Morocco gives a chance at a Spain political status bump.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
Out of curiousity (and while the kids were having a nap) I decided to model (crudely) what the impact would be if Russia were given an additional factory at start and if the x2 multiplier did not kick in for two or three additional turns:

While I might not object to adding a Moscow factory, I don't think I want to change Russian production. The WR threshold for FM2 is actually sort of finely tuned. For example, if Germany takes Denmark before France, then Russia can get an early production bump with moves to E Poland.

Global Glory has the poli event that bumps USA WR if Russia is attacked by Japan. This event could be beefed up a little if need be. It would increase production a turn or two earlier and can give the WA a supply bump. Currently it can fire twice, and each time it increases USA WR by 1 point and gives the WA 5 supplies.

[Marshall Art]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

But in fact Vichy North Africa was the first stepping stone to Europe, and Vichy was one of the few "neutrals" actually invaded by the UN, and the UK had already had combat with Vichy forces in Syria. I don't think this is ahistorical.

Given the assistance the Vichy regime supplied to Germany (e.g. use of airbases in N Africa, not modelled in the game), it strikes me that an action in N Africa is historically likely to be the first thing done once the WA gets itself back on balance and ready to go on the offensive. In fact, historically that is exactly what happened, it just took the US entry to get the WA back on balance.

While I am not sure about the fact that German forces operated out of Vichy territory (in fact what I believed was that until the WA invaded Northern Africa it did not happen) I probably misunderstood you. You referred to "Vichy" as the whole bubble (France and African territory plus Syria) while I meant just Vichy-France.

I do agree that Any territory outside France should be penalized to a lesser degree than attacking Vichy-France. Rationale - the invasion of a French colony would be less noticed by the world than an attack on the European mainland. The take-over of Syria or Morocco could simply be declared an internal French affair (Free French versus Vichy-troops). Which is what pretty much happended IIRC.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
... the Vichy regime supplied to Germany (e.g. use of airbases in N Africa, not modelled in the game),

While I am not sure about the fact that German forces operated out of Vichy territory (in fact what I believed was that until the WA invaded Northern Africa it did not happen) ...

I have a couple of WWII atlases which denote VNA airbases as "Axis" airbases. This was the basis of my comment, those maps made a subconscious impression on me.

But I can't find any indication of VNA airbases actually used by the Axis prior to the fall back to Tunisia, so I think you are correct and they were not used by the Axis before Torch. I believe those maps I've seen are misleading.

[SGT Rice]

I'll throw a couple of suggestions into the hopper here.

1) US WR bumps - I think there's sound historical evidence that the size and strategic significance of countries/locations attacked by the Axis was the primary driver of US pro-war sentiment; the more visible/threatening the Axis looked (compared to the Russians/Brits), the more willing Americans were to support preparations for war. This was the rationale for introducing US WR bumps from U-boat sinkings of transports. I would suggest the following approach to apply this logic:

a) Make all WR bumps for attacks on minor neutrals symmetrical, i.e., the Brits would incur the same (negative) US WR bump as the (positive) bump the Axis incur when attacking any given neutral.

b) Sort the neutrals into tiers based on size/political/strategic importance, i.e.:

tier I: Italy, Russia (Siberia) // WR penalty = 3-6
tier II: Spain, Turkey, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, any Latin American country // WR penalty = 2-4
tier III: All others // WR penalty = 1-2

c) Add another class of WR penalties for VP locations; 1 point of US WR for each VP region captured by the Axis. (If Americans were reading newspapers describing the fall of Moscow, Cairo, New Delhi, Sydney, etc., they would definitely have perceived that the world had gotten more dangerous).


2) The German-Japanese "squeeze" play - A Japanese 'blitz' of 10+ units across Siberia has always been one of the most implausible events that regularly occurs in AWD. The same can be said for the ease with which Japan can conquer China if she simply commits a large army to it, or for the ease with which Germany can "run the table" in Africa. The reason these types of campaigns never took place is simple logistics; terrain, weather, disease and a lack of infrastructure make it incredibly difficult to support large scale military movements in places like Siberia, western China and Africa. The Japanese forces that tried to advance through Burma to India late in the war were as decimated by physical exertion, hunger and disease as they were by enemy action. I think there's a pretty direct way to implement these physical constraints in AWD:

a) Prohibit supply unit tactical movement in/out of rough terrain regions.

Why should truckloads of supplies be able to move in rough terrain with no road networks?

b) Reduce all rail capacities outside of Europe, Japan, the Commonwealth and the US to 20. Add a damaged 20 point rail link to Northern Persia.

Why should a single rail line (i.e., the trans-Siberian) have the same throughput capacity as all the north-south lines in Italy (which always ran on time)? [;)]

[Forwarn45]

Some interesting ideas. I'm still thinking about them. But a couple thoughts:

(1) I really like the idea of giving the US War readiness the same push down for invading neutrals as the Axis goes up. I kind of like the idea of there being a couple categories of neutrals for WR purposes but this gets a little complicated. If it were considered, I'd suggest leaving Russia a special case and having 2 tiers - basically bumping Italy into the first tier with Spain, Turkey, etc. I'd also probably bump Sweden into the lower tier.

I've also been thinking for a while that a German attack on Russia should itself increase US war readiness a little (maybe equivalent to a normal attack on a neutral or a "minor" tier 3 neutral per Sgt. Rice's example. To partially compensate for the 1 or 2 point increase, maybe add 1 to the US threshold for declaring war on the Axis (but I think I would leave the 2x production thresshold as is).

(2) I kind of like the idea of reducing rail in some regions - but I wouldn't suggest a huge reduction, maybe 25? As for Siberia, the Russians usually can stop Japan in Siberia - the question is whether they can afford to do it depending on what the Germans are up to. It's usually a very early attack by Germany (as in 1940) that sees Japan making it to the Urals. I don't think it's too far out of whack as is.

[Marshall Art]

How about leaving the rail setting a is but instead at game start make those that are intended to be reduced simply damaged? If the Soviet player wants a full operational rail from Moscow to Vladivostok he can spend the supplies and "expand i.e. repair" it, similar to repair of damaged resources.

Same for China where I would also propose to add destoyed rail paths in the other Chines regions, where a rail could also be build to Burma if any player sees fit and spends the supplies. Anyone remember the Movie "the Bridge on the River Kwai" ? 

[SGT Rice]

I suggested 20 as a reduced rail value for ease of implementation; you could simply represent these regions with damaged rail at the start of the scenario and block them from being repaired.

Aside from the reduced capacity, I think it makes sense for these regions to have only one damage level; in addition to the sparse rail net, during WWII they would have been critically short of locomotives, rolling stock, skilled labor, etc., all of which had to be replaced from more developed countries/regions.

[SGT Rice]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art

Same for China where I would also propose to add destoyed rail paths in the other Chines regions, where a rail could also be build to Burma if any player sees fit and spends the supplies. Anyone remember the Movie "the Bridge on the River Kwai" ? 

That raises a fascinating possibility. Brian created all those special "undeveloped resources" that require several turns of investment just to become damaged ... seems like the same thing could be done with rail links in certain regions where major transportation projects were undertaken during the war. The examples I can think of off the top of my head are the Burma Road, the Persian Lend Lease route, and the Alaskan Highway. The Burma and Persia projects were both of major strategic significance; it took a year or more of large scale field engineering to create usable transport links allowing the WA to ship supplies overland into China and Russia.

[Lucky1]

You guys are all going to really hate me, but I have concerns about reducing Soviet Rail... My usual refrain applies: balance issues are implicated. I know that from my own play, it is often worthwhile at some point for Japan to attack Vladivostok and Irkutsk. This denies the Soviets of not only a measure of production, but it is easier to form a defensive line in Irkutsk (where there is a double MP barrier) than by staying in Manchuria/Korea and allowing Soviets air range to the home islands and surrounding fleets. If Soviet rail were reduced to 20, this would mean even more delays for the Soviets to push back to striking distance. Too, it will mean that it will be more easy for Japan to defy an A-bomb (higher vps). So, if this change is to be made, I would caution that counterweights should be contemplated....

I rather like the Burma rail idea if the undamaged resource model could be transposed....

Too, if the Finn model is being adopted, I would suggest raising the AV threshold by 1, as there is almost a virtual guarantee that Finland will join the war and add her resource to the VP count.

[WanderingHead]

I've thought of the "long production" rail before. I'd most likely just do it if not for the map graphics implication. Those rail lines don't exist on the map, so it would be out of sync.

Similar to Finland having 2MP borders. I think it makes sense and I'm inclined to do it, but it would be out of sync with the map.

ORIGINAL: Lucky1
Too, if the Finn model is being adopted, I would suggest raising the AV threshold by 1, as there is almost a virtual guarantee that Finland will join the war and add her resource to the VP count.

Leaning-Axis neutrals contribute their resources to Axis AV already.

[Marshall Art]

If the only argument were that the map would not match I guess I still would like at least the rail development option to be realized. One could still see whether there is a railroad from the region pop-up menu (assuming sufficient intel even by opposing players) - similarly to the resources. And only rail developed during the game would be "hidden" on the map.

I agree that not seeing double MP borders is a different story, this could really force players to forget about it.

If nothing else is agreeable I would support making the rail in discussion damaged at start so that any players involved need to repai tham before they can enjoy full capacity. All Chinese regions (including Japanese controlled) and Siberian regions could be treated this way. Maybe even regions in the middle East?

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
If the only argument were that the map would not match I guess I still would like at least the rail development option to be realized.

There are probably other more subtle implications. Some things that use zero transport capacity (e.g. resources moving the factories) could probably use these "undeveloped" rail units, unless I was really careful and able to track it all down.

I really do like the idea, but I'm very reluctant to actually tackle it.

It is easy to start some rail damaged, although I am hesitant to actually do it.

[Lucky1]

Hmmm. Watching the recent 1.04 AARs I find it revelatory that Xianing and Sgt. Rice (in my experience, probably a couple of the best players out there) have double-teamed Russia in their games vs. each other......

[Lebatron]

Double teaming Russia is a balance killer. I've always believed that. Anyway, if it could be fixed by making some adjustments like moving the Siberian factory so it's not captured right away, increasing the Soviet Siberian garrison, making the threat of China a bigger concern for Japan, and most importantly redesigning the East Front to give Russia a larger buffer would probably fix this. If only....

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]