Operation Barbarossa

[Jay Doubleyou]

It took me a few days to find the time to finish the turn.
It's in your mailbox now Rufus.

[RufusTFirefly]

Jep, got it. [:)]

Edit: Axis AGN turn 9 done and sent to Ccr and jjdenver.

[TheArchduke]

For those interested, I have been quite update-heavy with Barbarossa and I think I reached a new milestone. Check it out.

[RufusTFirefly]

Axis AGN turn 10 done and send to Ccr and jjdenver.
 
@TheArchduke: Great. Thanks.

[hatemf90]

I actually would like to try the newst version, any one else interested?

[Ccr]

Turn to AGS
Smolensk falls.

[RufusTFirefly]

Jep, as TheArchduke said it would be a "milestone" I am really curious about it. Hm,... is he working somewhere in an advertising company [:D]

[TheArchduke]

Who has the turn?

Yeah, I am probably changing the dynamic a bit. Forward cities like Minsk, Riga, Kiev and Odessa get a higher production (25k) instead of the siberian cities. That changes back in Sept/Oct/Nov , but if they are lost too early, the Soviets are at an disadvantage. Right now, at least from my testgames with Boron, total withdrawal as the Soviet Union is a very viable tactic, but feels gamey somehow.

[RufusTFirefly]

Have done Axis turn of AGN today and send the turn to AGC and ANS. jjdenver (AGS) wants to quit. Cannt tell you whether we will get someone else soon or continue with two Axis players.

[jjdenver]

I can still do my turn. Just send it to me when AGC is done. However I'd like to find a replacement for me since I know that soon we will be seeing the mega-fighter stacks and I hate playing with those.

I'd be interested in trying the new version as long as we can agree on some house rules to spread fighters out for the air war. That's my only problem w/ the game.

[TheArchduke]

I wouldn´t mind a house rule there, but I do not know which would help us?

[RufusTFirefly]

I am as well interested in trying the new version. So if there is another group forming to start a game of new version,count me in please.
 
A house-rule makes sense. So I agree, we should do so. Any idea about the rule (a limited number of air units per airfield, perhaps)?

[TheArchduke]

I will work on something today.

There are numerous things I consider:

- Counterartillery
- Some sort of nerf for aircraft
- Soviet production slowly moves east with events.

Any input is welcome.

[jjdenver]

These are the house rules that I'm using in another game of GPW:

1) Limit on tech advances: 1941: German tech2. 1942: Soviet tech2 German tech3. 1943: Soviet tech3 German tech3. 1944 Soviet tech4 German tech4.
2) Air basing: No more than 5 FTR's at a single base, and 5 bombers at any base.
3) Air mission limit: No more than 25 FTR's and 15 bombers can fly on a single attack mission.
4) Air build cap: No more than 100 FTR's can exist on either German or Soviet side. No more than 50 bombers can exist on either side also. In 1943 the Soviet limit increases to 125 FTR's. If you find yourself over the limit at start you can't build any more of the type until you have losses that put you below the threshold.

The caps in (4) would probably need to be raised to something like 150/75 and 175/75 since Op Barb has more air SFT's than GPW does.

If another game is started with similar house rules I'd be in for that one.

As for this game I'd be happy to continue if we adopt similar house rules. If not I've found a replacement so the game can go on fine. Archduke, Rufus, CCR, Jay - what do you guys want to do?

[TheArchduke]

Thanks for the input, jjdenver, is appreciated.

I would love to be able to implent a bit of an aircraft restriction into the game, but alas, AT doesn´t allow me to do so, or does it?

[RufusTFirefly]

The house rules seem fine to me. Completely agree.
 
In the running game it is necessary to find a way to deal with the fact that tech level of fighters is already higher than tech2. And we need at least one turn to change from size of fighter groups and placement in few bases to small groups distributed in more bases.

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: TheArchduke
Thanks for the input, jjdenver, is appreciated.
I would love to be able to implent a bit of an aircraft restriction into the game, but alas, AT doesn´t allow me to do so, or does it?

Hi AD - I don't think you can do much. However there might be some way in event engine to check every turn for more than 10 planes or 5 planes at an airfield and if found reduce their readiness to 30 so they can only fly away?

However what I was suggesting was a house rule that the players would just agree to honor.

As for RufusTFirefly's question about how we'd implement it in this game I'd suggest any tech advances already purchased are exempted from the tech build restrictions - just no new ones can be purchased in contravention of the house rules about tech. Also the air stacking and mission rules could wait 1 turn to be implemented to give players a chance to re-organize their air units.

The other option would be to just restart with same players using your new version.

I'm ok with anything - you 4 guys just have to weigh in with what you want to do. If you choose to go on w/o house rules then I have a kind offer to replace me from another player. If we do house rules I'll continue on. If we restart with house rules I'd love that also. I'm ok with whatever.

[Jay Doubleyou]

Imo the houserule would greatly benefit Russia and limit Germany to the same extend. (if i correctly interpret your rules that is)

If you can only station 5 fighters on a single base, that means germany can fly missions with maximum of 5 fighters. If the Russians have 2 airbases within interceptrange then the Luftwaffe is intercepted by 10 fighters. We all know what the results will be.
So playing with the houserules you suggest Luftwaffe will soon find itself without a chance.

[Ccr]

Have done AGC. AGS still to move.

I think implementing houserules midway through this game wouldn't be good. I'd like to play on as is. Please PM me the email of the new AGS player if the other current players are happy with this.

Starting another, additional, game with the updated scenario and house rules (once they have been firmed up) would be an interesting option.

[jjdenver]

I've PM'ed the replacement's email to CCR. He can take over AGS.

Jay if you feel that the rules would benefit the defender, can you think of any alternative house rules for a separate game?

After thinking about it some more I'm not quite certain the defender will necessarily benefit. Since the attacker can fly in 25 attacking planes, that's 5 airfields worth. The attacker could pick away at the outer edges of defender fighter cover and win many battles. I really think that perhaps the max number of fighters in a strike should be smaller - perhaps only 10 or 15. This would force more even air battles against the defender and prevent the attacker from gaining 15 vs 5 or 20 vs 5 or 25 vs 5 FTR v FTR combats.

Thx