Norway

[AlvaroSousa]

I have been giving consideration to Norway.

I was thinking as incentive to taking it is making the iron route lane invulnerable to Allied raiding.

[MorningDew]

Very good idea in my opinion. As long as the Germans control all Norwegian ports, that would make sense. Creates historical incentive for both sides.

[Nirosi]

I like too! A lot...

[ComadrejaKorp]

Sounds good! completely agree

[MagicMissile]

I like it alot too good idea! Now if we can find some incentive to make Greece and Yugoslavia to be a part of the game ever again. Come on people think! [:)]

/MM

[MorningDew]

What was the historical reason for invading Italy and then Yugo?

[ComadrejaKorp]

[quote]ORIGINAL: MagicMissile

I like it alot too good idea! Now if we can find some incentive to make Greece and Yugoslavia to be a part of the game ever again. Come on people think! [:)]








IIt's true, if these countries had an incentive other than victory points and production points, it would make Axis interested and they would enter the game.

A system would be to relate the experience of the troops (directly affects their combat strength) with the morale of the country, this should go down for each casualty (each type of unit could have a value when it causes casualties and according to the type of defeat and the place where it occurs, increase or decrease this value) and increase with each hexe conquered (each hexe should have its own value according to its strategic importance). The countries of this alliance could receive in a smaller proportion the benefits or penalties.
In this way Axis would be more expansive, if it invades well it will get a reward and if it does it badly it will lose in this business.
It should work like this for Allies as well.

Just an idea, but difficult to apply and difficult to balance, but as you asked us to think I did (:

[MagicMissile]

One good idea but probably as you say hard to balance and program.

[MagicMissile]

Greece and Yugo I guess you mean? As far as I know Greece was for Mussolinis vanity and search for Glory and Yugoslavia because of the pro allied coup. None of these will be reason enough in the game to ever attack them. I think it was Harrybanana who taught me that the Allies cannot win a VP victory if Germany does reasonably well and survives until august 45. And in game you take Vichy and Alger for example instead of Belgrade and Athens. So as I understand it the VPs is for the moment not needed it is either you conquer the Axis before august 45 for an Allied win or the Axis wins.

My idea would be to try to adjust the VP system so basically if Germany does worse than historical in conquering VP hexes I think the game should be a draw if the Germans survive until august 45.

/MM

[MorningDew]

One other idea on Greece would be to tie taking Greece to raising Italian morale surrender value. Don't take Greece and the surrender morale is 5 less than it is now.

[ComadrejaKorp]

I know that it was commented that Italy should lose more morale points and Tripoli to surrender, but looking at the war panel of this latest Beta does not indicate that Italy has any morale limit to surrender, so it seems it should be completely defeated.
I'm not sure I should check.

[ComadrejaKorp]

I have been reading about the invasions of Greece and Yugoslavia, these are my conclusions, maybe wrong.

Germany invaded Yugoslavia in order to secure the Balkan flank due to the change to a pro-allied government. Although Yugoslavia had not really abandoned the pact with the tripartite and it was Hitler who decided to attack.

Germany invaded Greece to drive the British out of the Balkans, protect the Romanian oil wells from possible attacks, and assist the Italians in their fight with Athens.
So it seems that if the British had not landed their troops in Greece, possibly Germany would not have intervened, they would not have invaded just to help Italy. Translated into the game, it would be that as in Greece there are no UK troops to threaten, there are no reasons forcing them to attack it. It could be fine, that Italy started a war against Greece, it would participate more in the game from the beginning, but this would imply many changes.

It seems that there is no reason for them to participate in the war, it is a shame, I have had a good time attacking and defending Athens in previous games.

[ComadrejaKorp]

From Alvaro: Currently in the beta I am working on I set Italian break point to ZERO until Tripoli is taken and the USA is in the war. Then it becomes 56.

[AlvaroSousa]

You invade Yugoslavia for the production +1000 PP throughout the game (240 PP to garrison)
You invade Greece for the the production +520 PP throughout the game (120 PP to garrison)
Norway is the tricky one +520 PP throughout the game (300 PP to garrison)

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

You invade Yugoslavia for the production +1000 PP throughout the game (240 PP to garrison)
You invade Greece for the the production +520 PP throughout the game (120 PP to garrison)
Norway is the tricky one +520 PP throughout the game (300 PP to garrison)

The partisan movement in Yugoslavia evolved into something orders of magnitude greater than anywhere else in occupied Europe, even Russia. By the summer of 1944 the National Liberation Army had about 350,000 soldiers in 39 divisions grouped into 12 Corps. The Germans committed about 25 division (8 to 9 corps) to garrison Yugoslavia. The Germans only began to withdraw in late '44 once the Soviets advanced into Romanian and Bulgaria which threatened to cut off all their forces in Greece and Yugoslavia.

By 1945 Tito had a fully capable field army of 800,000 in 63 divisions, they were receiving large arms/supplies shipments from the British via Italy across the Adriatic in 1944. Before that most of their arms came from captured Italian/German stocks. This Yugoslavian army advanced into Hungary along with the Red Army. I don't know how this can be replicated in the game, but it would introduce a significant, historical element that forced the Germans to commit major military resources (equivalent to an army group) that were otherwise needed on the Russian front.

[malkarma]

Then I want to see the internal fight between serbs and croats partisans reflected also.

[MagicMissile]

Fair enough take them for economy. I fear though that going for Egypt for example might be more tempting most of the time [:)].

/MM

[ComadrejaKorp]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I have been giving consideration to Norway.

I was thinking as incentive to taking it is making the iron route lane invulnerable to Allied raiding.

When I read this I believed that the gold route would be invulnerable if Axis took Norway, in Beta U16 it is invulnerable from the start, it is not necessary to invade Norway. Is this how it should work?

[MorningDew]

That sounds right. The British were trying to figure out how they might stop it (maybe mines) when Germany invaded. The route is well protected by a series of islands - so it was going to be hard for the British to have any effect unless they had Norway allied or invaded.

[ComadrejaKorp]

Just that, Allies and Axis would have an incentive to invade Norway.