Game Map 1941 (ALPHA Version)

[PyleDriver]

Well theres been some talk among us testers of our desire to go ito a "War in the West" game after this. Agian it's us talking, not Gary and Joel, who make the choices...There are alot of reasons why we should and I've voiced them. We have the engine in place, and the thousands of hours behind us perfecting it. Once were complete with this, give us a great map agian, and the hard part begins, research. I think theres better info out there on the west also. Even the naval aspect Gary took care of in WitP...So one step at a time, and as Jim said and I will reinforce, I would like to see a "War in Europe" in my lifetime...

[vinnie71]

... hopefully with the Med/Northern Europe being part of the map as well coz otherwise we'd have a couple of years with no action whatsoever...

[elmo3]

Well right now our complete focus is on making WitE a winner.

[vinnie71]

Just kidding![;)]

[Montbrun]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Well theres been some talk among us testers of our desire to go ito a "War in the West" game after this. Agian it's us talking, not Gary and Joel, who make the choices...There are alot of reasons why we should and I've voiced them. We have the engine in place, and the thousands of hours behind us perfecting it. Once were complete with this, give us a great map agian, and the hard part begins, research. I think theres better info out there on the west also. Even the naval aspect Gary took care of in WitP...So one step at a time, and as Jim said and I will reinforce, I would like to see a "War in Europe" in my lifetime...

Maybe a "Campaign for North Africa" at battalion-level?

[SeaMonkey]

CfNA would be absolutely awesome, but there's an all important factor for a game of this theater, you'd have to do the complete Med version, well at least the Eastern Med.

Starting in 1940, making Crete and Malta airborne operations optional, on map airbases in Sicily, Greece, & S.Balkans, perhaps abstracting the convoys from the west(Gibraltar), but inclusion of a full naval feature would be paramount as this whole region was at the mercy of logistics.

To my knowledge, no one has ever done NA and Med properly.

[itsjustme]

Totally agree.  Beautiful map.

[bjfagan]

I miss the many hours of playing Fire In The East and Scorched Earth, so I can't wait for this game to come out. The maps and counters look great, btw.

I am curious though... considering how the map cuts off the northern part of Finland, how is the battle for Murmansk factored in? If at all.

[Josh]

ORIGINAL: bjfagan

I miss the many hours of playing Fire In The East and Scorched Earth, so I can't wait for this game to come out. The maps and counters look great, btw.

I am curious though... considering how the map cuts off the northern part of Finland, how is the battle for Murmansk factored in? If at all.

The battle of Murmansk is not factored in, this has been discussed just two days earlier... can't find the post though. I think the main reason is lack of time, they wanted to focus on more important things. Well who knows, maybe later with an add on. Personally I don't think it's *that* important.

[Joel Billings]

It's a lack of resources versus the return. To include the area to the north, we would have had to add a huge number of hexes to the map. The map already has 183 by 140 hexes (25,620 hexes), and we really didn't want to add on another 45 rows to the map (another 8,235 hexes) just to get Murmansk into the game. Funny that no one mentions Iran, the source of 70% of the lend lease (not sure of that, but I think that Murmansk was small compared to Iran and the Pacific routes). Also, with large amounts going through the Pacific route, Murmansk was not the the huge factor that some of you are making it out to be. Would it be better if we included Murmansk? Yes, but we think not by much, and all games have trade-offs. We felt the cost for adding Murmansk (art, code, memory, testing, balance) was too much relative to the benefits gained.

[critter]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

It's a lack of resources versus the return. To include the area to the north, we would have had to add a huge number of hexes to the map. The map already has 183 by 140 hexes (25,620 hexes), and we really didn't want to add on another 45 rows to the map (another 8,235 hexes) just to get Murmansk into the game. Funny that no one mentions Iran, the source of 70% of the lend lease (not sure of that, but I think that Murmansk was small compared to Iran and the Pacific routes). Also, with large amounts going through the Pacific route, Murmansk was not the the huge factor that some of you are making it out to be. Would it be better if we included Murmansk? Yes, but we think not by much, and all games have trade-offs. We felt the cost for adding Murmansk (art, code, memory, testing, balance) was too much relative to the benefits gained.

I personally don't think it's worth it. But have you considered an off map box ala World in Flames. Axis units could roll their even money attacks against the Russians put there to stop them. If the Germans add more the Russians will just add enough to make it even money again.
I'd rather take Leningrad and winter in Moscow..

[ComradeP]

It's a lack of resources versus the return. To include the area to the north, we would have had to add a huge number of hexes to the map. The map already has 183 by 140 hexes (25,620 hexes), and we really didn't want to add on another 45 rows to the map (another 8,235 hexes) just to get Murmansk into the game. Funny that no one mentions Iran, the source of 70% of the lend lease (not sure of that, but I think that Murmansk was small compared to Iran and the Pacific routes). Also, with large amounts going through the Pacific route, Murmansk was not the the huge factor that some of you are making it out to be. Would it be better if we included Murmansk? Yes, but we think not by much, and all games have trade-offs. We felt the cost for adding Murmansk (art, code, memory, testing, balance) was too much relative to the benefits gained.

Why would we mention Iran? There was no realistic plan to attack Iran, whilst there was a war on around Murmansk. You're saying that an active combat zone is not on the map, using as an excuse that a country that wasn't even entered by the Axis isn't on the map either and that most of the Lend-Lease was shipped through there. That's a pretty poor excuse. You can't really blame us for asking for an important part of the fighting on the northern front that just isn't on the map and we can do nothing about to resolve in our favour.

The Caucasus and, I believe, all major ports around the Caspian Sea are on the map, so we can cut those off, forcing the Soviets to move supply overland through what is now Turkmenistan and Kazachstan. In short: the Axis player could lower the Lend-Lease coming from Iran with what's on the map.

If those over 8000 hexes would be added, the map of the relevant portions of the Soviet Union would be complete. Currently, it isn't as an important portion of the northern front is missing.

Moreover, the capture of Murmansk and Leningrad would've allowed several German elite divisions to move to other duties and the frontline to wheel south. Parts of the Finnish army could demobilize, lowering the strain on the Finnish economy whilst possibly strengthening the remaining Finnish forces and fewer Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine assets would be needed in Norway. The capture of Murmansk and Leningrad would've offered the Axis a lot more initial benefits as, say, the capture of Stalingrad or even the success of the 1942 summer offensive.

[Rasputitsa]

It is clear that this title is at an advanced stage of development, it may be glass half-full, or glass half-empty, but the promise is that we are going to get something enormous and anyway there cannot be any major changes at this late stage. The testing team are all saying that this is going to be a great game and they are in the best position to know.

Happy Christmas to all of you and roll on publication date. [:)]

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

It's a lack of resources versus the return. To include the area to the north, we would have had to add a huge number of hexes to the map. The map already has 183 by 140 hexes (25,620 hexes), and we really didn't want to add on another 45 rows to the map (another 8,235 hexes) just to get Murmansk into the game. Funny that no one mentions Iran, the source of 70% of the lend lease (not sure of that, but I think that Murmansk was small compared to Iran and the Pacific routes). Also, with large amounts going through the Pacific route, Murmansk was not the the huge factor that some of you are making it out to be. Would it be better if we included Murmansk? Yes, but we think not by much, and all games have trade-offs. We felt the cost for adding Murmansk (art, code, memory, testing, balance) was too much relative to the benefits gained.

Why would we mention Iran? There was no realistic plan to attack Iran, whilst there was a war on around Murmansk. You're saying that an active combat zone is not on the map, using as an excuse that a country that wasn't even entered by the Axis isn't on the map either and that most of the Lend-Lease was shipped through there. That's a pretty poor excuse. You can't really blame us for asking for an important part of the fighting on the northern front that just isn't on the map and we can do nothing about to resolve in our favour.

The Caucasus and, I believe, all major ports around the Caspian Sea are on the map, so we can cut those off, forcing the Soviets to move supply overland through what is now Turkmenistan and Kazachstan. In short: the Axis player could lower the Lend-Lease coming from Iran with what's on the map.

If those over 8000 hexes would be added, the map of the relevant portions of the Soviet Union would be complete. Currently, it isn't as an important portion of the northern front is missing.

Moreover, the capture of Murmansk and Leningrad would've allowed several German elite divisions to move to other duties and the frontline to wheel south. Parts of the Finnish army could demobilize, lowering the strain on the Finnish economy whilst possibly strengthening the remaining Finnish forces and fewer Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine assets would be needed in Norway. The capture of Murmansk and Leningrad would've offered the Axis a lot more initial benefits as, say, the capture of Stalingrad or even the success of the 1942 summer offensive.

As a player who will be playing as a Soviet player, I think a number of off-map boxes should be added where the Germans can send elite divisions. Iran sounds good as an off-map box full of elite German divisions, as does, Crete, Turkey, Greece, Iceland, Greenland and Norway.

[vinnie71]

Problem is that it is possible for a German player to move troops from these areas to the USSR and vice versa. Ex the German army in Norway was something like 12 divisions strong in '45. An elite mountain army was fighting in the area as well. Such forces could be moved to the Eastern Front because there is no fear of a Western allied intervention. Iceland and Greenland were no go areas for the Germans since they didn't have major amphibous capability, while Turkey was too precious for the Germans to attack (lots of natural resources flowing from there - chrome and such stuff).

Though like everyone else I would like to have a map which is extensive as possible, I understand the developers problems. A battle for Archangel and Murmansk would involve only smallish forces and as such there could have been no frontline in real life, for larger formations could not be supported. The only section of the map which could be opened up with indirect connection to the eastern front, and is already present is Yugoslavia.

[paullus99]

Churchill pushed for an invasion of Norway (though he was eventually talked out of it). Hitler was fearfull of the same, which is why so many troops were committed to the defense of the country (to maintain supplies of raw materials and goods from Sweden). I doubt those troops could have been committed to the Eastern Front, even if Hitler had wanted to.

[ComradeP]

I don't think anyone's talking about including the German garrison in Norway, we're talking about including the ~50.000 troops that were fighting the Soviets in northern Finland and Norway. I don't see how those forces could not be committed to other theatres, after the capture of Murmansk. More elite mountain troops in the Crimea or the Caucasus would not have hurt the Axis war effort.

Norway is a large country, the garrison wasn't entirely out of proportion, with around 1 German for every square kilometre. That includes the garrison of in many cases static forces, the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine assets in the area (which were technically on combat missions against the Arctic Convoys and Allied naval presence in the area), and the forces in northern Norway fighting the Soviets.

Fact remains that a combat zone of the Eastern Front isn't included on the map. I can live with that, we'll have to after all, but there's no reason to marginalize what we're missing.

[vinnie71]

Actually Germany had a surplus of mountain troops, with around 10 divisions of mountain troops + specialised high alpine battalions being raised. This excluding SS formations which were graced with that title as well. My problem is that players would be free to move forces found in Norway into Russia if they exist on the map unless they are tied down somehow, which would be counterproductive in the end...

[ComradeP]

The value of the divisions would be their elite status and their training for mountain warfare. With more mountain divisions available, regular divisions could be withdrawn from Yugoslavia, or the mountain divisions could be used in the Crimea or the Caucasus, possibly as a replacement for Jaeger units. There would always be a job they could do, they wouldn't be redundant. Heck, imagine filling Yugoslavia with mountain divisions to give Tito's crew a real fight.

The divisions also wouldn't be able to move around as you fear, considering that there would be no land link with the rest of the front until Leningrad is captured. It would take a lot of time to transition the divisions from northern Norway to other fronts by sea and later by rail. The value comes from more flexibility for the player, and historic detail.

[vinnie71]

Yeah unfortunately even Yugoslavia is out of the picture as it is today...