Page 9 of 19
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:24 am
by Zorachus99
ORIGINAL: brian brian
There are a lot of ideas out there on how to change the pact rules. Yet after all these years, none of them have been published by ADG.
The simplest one is this: an agreement before the game starts to not do this as the Russians. It can even be done before bidding if you are going that route. I for one, enjoy playing the Russians and am not afraid of a 1941 Barbarossa. In fact I find a 41 Barb to be a more enjoyable game as it is one featuring more mobile action and less solid lines for both sides. You really have to have faith in your western Allies to feel this way however. I am also one that feels the game overall favors the Allies slightly, and that Russia can survive a strong Barbarossa if all of the Allies are skilled players. Many would disagree with those points, particularly the second one.
I would suggest only this for MWiF: giving the players some control in this area. For the AI, a 'no-stuff' agreement should be something a player could pick. I can about guarantee that if the AI were to stuff the border against a brand new WiF player who has managed to subdue France on time on his first try and get everything ready in Poland and then that player were to learn how those pact braking rules he skimmed over really worked, that player would be pretty unhappy with his new wargame, kind of like how I felt playing Eastern Front:1941 on my Atari computer 20 years ago when I learned the computer player benefitted from perpetually increasing unit strengths, while mine stayed the same. I know Steve does not want to give the players ways to tie the AI's hands, and I agree with that, but as you can see from Zorach's first post today, this is a very important point among long-time players of the game. In an all-human-players game, I don't think anything would need to be done by the program, the players can work it out amongst themselves just as in table-top WiF.
Aside from that, I wouldn't suggest attempting to change this rule in the first computer edition of the game.
Zorach, it's too bad you don't have a player group that can make this issue work for you. Perhaps you could try playing the Russians a few times and agree not to stuff, to get some games in that way. If you are an "Axis Player" you really should try playing the Allies more anyway. It will improve your Axis play in the process.
I agree on pretty much everything you said.
Playing USSR and agreeing to not stuffing, whilst my oppenent continues to do so... not so fun IMO. Thanks for the words of wisdom.
Tinkering with garrison values of the actual units may not be a decent solution either way you look at it, because it either
a) forces the USSR to DOW to build it's militia.
or
b) makes it too easy to DOW early with Germany.
I don't think you should be cornered in either case. Clearly barbarossa was a conditional affair, pre-planned, but delayed for a variety of reasons. I just can't rationalize the fact that with the entire European continent subdued, Germany should be prevented from DOW'ing USSR...
Make the optional easy on yourself Steve.
Cheers
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:13 am
by hakon
After sleeping on this, I agree that the best way to introduce an optional, is to keep it as simple as possible.
Option 1: Lebensraum
Rule text: Starting in JF41, Germany can break the Molotov-Riebentropp pact at any time, provided they hold Paris.
If flavour text is needed, it could be based on a short summary from the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
For those who think that Russia is too much of a pushover when playing with the option above, and that also think that it was because of the German aggression that Stalin managed to motivate his population to the level that he did, one could add this option:
Option 2: The Great Patriotic War
Rule text: If Germany declares war on the USSR, the USSR gains an additional PM modifier of +0.25 for the remainder of the war, on top of all their other modifiers, such as city bonuses, enemy in home country and attack in home country.
Flavour text could be collected from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War_(term)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Fr ... ld_War_II)
The rules above could be seen in relation to each other, but should be selectable individually.
Cheers
Hakon
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:22 am
by darune
In sommer of 40 hitler, at one point, wanted to start Barbarossa in the fall of 40, but this plan was rejected as "unrealistic".
It is the only logical argument i can see why germany shouldn't be allowed to break the pact whenever it wants (ie. the german high command deeming it "unrealistic").
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:26 am
by darune
ORIGINAL: Orm
Maybe one solution could be to make an optional rule for different garrison values in regards to break neutrality pacts?
Maybe something like this?
ART, AT, AA: 1
Other divisions: 0.5
MIL, GAR: 0.5
HQ-A, ARM, MECH, SS unit: 3
HQ-I, MTN: 2
LND2, LND3: 1.5
Carrier plane unit: 0
other land or aircraft unit: 1
This gives a lower value to the cheap defencive units and units needed for an offence a higher value.
I like this idea, although i can see how it becomes more difficult to count in the boardgame version and you have an extra litlle table to look up.
Alternatively it could be based on simply the BP cost or as maybe a simpler(better?) the production time (pilots not counting then, SS counting 6).
That way one could at least avoid the somewhat gamey thinking that goes into how much garrison do i get per BP (realistic or not).
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:37 am
by Bibs
ORIGINAL: darune
In sommer of 40 hitler, at one point, wanted to start Barbarossa in the fall of 40, but this plan was rejected as "unrealistic".
It is the only logical argument i can see why germany shouldn't be allowed to break the pact whenever it wants (ie. the german high command deeming it "unrealistic").
Executing the plan was unrealistic because the Germans couldn't actually get all of the units/supplies in place, but they still could have attacked. In game terms, that is irrelevant since it's not a political reason. As players we are allowed to launch campaigns no matter how unwise or unprepared we are to execute them [:D]
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:02 pm
by morgil
I honestly dont see the problem. Then again I have never played against nor with someone that stuffs.
But still, Im failing to see the problem.
You want to destroy the opponent when you feel like it, but he doesnt want to be destroyed, and can prevent it, so the game is ruined ?
There should be ways to circumvent this, like breaking the pact early, or countering it with a Sitzkrieg. If you dont wanna play the game if you cant rape the russians, i suggest you play another game, like GTA or something more suited to you.
Making it harder for USSR to get the stuff in, by changeing the garison factors of units, is partly lame, but also has a direct effect on the Conquest of Italy.
Remember that if USSR fails to stop the war from happening, hes got his entire army within Stuka range.. Not a good place to be.
If you want to take away the ability to stuff i would suggest going with Hakon's option 1: Lebensraum, atleast it makes sense.
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:39 pm
by micheljq
ORIGINAL: hakon
3) Setting the ration to 3:2 could be a good solution, imo. To the allies' advantage, it would increase the number of units needed by germany to hold the garrison vs Russia in 1940. It would also make it easier for Russia to DOW later on. (all good, imo, though some sea lion fans may disagree).
Cheers
Hakon
I like this one, setting the garrison ratio to 3:2 in JA41 for example. [:)]
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:00 pm
by Bibs
Was the original intent of the Pact rule to try and
1) force the Russians to deploy towards the border (or give them a reason to), or
2) Keep the Germans from totally stripping Poland of units under threat that the USSR could break the pact in 1940?
3) Keep the Germans from doing a 1940 Barbarossa (or allow the Russians to prevent one)
4) A general rule for all pacts that has been applied to the N-S pact.
It doesn't seem like there could ever be a rule that achieves #1 except to force it directly. No sane Russian player is going to deploy near the border unless there is an overwhelming chance to prevent a German attack. I also can't see a Russian player breaking the pact (#2) in 1940 for similar reasons unless there are really unusual circumstances.
Is a 1940 Barbarossa an issue? Even in the last game I played where the N/D and J/F turns had lots of decent weather it was M/J 40 before France fell so getting the units back east to attack in good weather would require some lucky weather rolls. Has anyone ever just gone right from Poland into the USSR in early 1940?
If you read the USSR synopsis in the scenario booklet, it states.
Even excluding entry markers, you should be able to get a defensive garrison total of 60 by May/Jun 1941. With the inclusion of Axis minor allies, the Germans can only get an offensive garrison total of around 110. Unless you are unlucky, you probably have sufficient forces to keep the Germans below that vital 2:1 throughout 1941.
It clear that this it is design intent for the USSR to be able to prevent a 1941 Barb. I find this odd in that it makes the game like WIF5 where it was always better to spend 1941 beating the CW to death and then go to Russia in 1942. I found the WIF5 42 Barb to usually be successful and it seems FE has gone the route of keeping this flow, but making the Russians better equipped to deal with it.
What makes this frustrating for some players is that in most of the rest of the game we have freedom to do things that our real-life counterparts could never have done. I use as an example, if the Germans declare war on Holland, Belgium stays completely neutral. It’s what they might have done, but they might not and Hitler couldn’t (or wouldn’t) take the risk that Belgium (or Holland in reverse) might allow the Allies in if the other was attacked. In WIF you know with 100% certainty that they will do nothing if the other is attacked, and furthermore Belgium will be surprised by a German attack despite seeing Holland get pummeled a day earlier. Another example is that politically, the British govt. had to deploy a BEF to France. But many players will skip a BEF and declare war on Italy in addition.
But for the USSR, the German does not have the freedom to attack them based on a Pact that is imposed on the player and in the midst of all the freedom, we are unable to do one thing that happend historically.
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:29 pm
by rkr1958
I'll preference this with that I've never played WiF. I didn't know that such an animal existed until about a year ago when I stumbled across a reference to it and to Matrix's computer version of it. I do enjoy this historical period and did play a lot of AH's 3rd Reich in the late 70's through the mid 80's. I'm now involved in a number of Commander Europe at War (CEaW) games. So I do have experience with strategic level WW-II games; but nothing at this level of complexity or depth. I'm very impressed and overwhelmed with it all.
With all that said ... my objective in looking for a WW-II level strategic game is one that plays out either historically or historically possible. In reading this thread and trying to understand the "stuff" it seems to me that this rule is about forcing a situation where the Russians deploy troops forward to defend against the threat of a German invasion versus building their defenses deeper in and in more favorable terrian. To me the rule seems to try to contrive a desired results (i.e., the Russians defend forward) but at the expense of not allowing the German player to attack Russia when they're ready. In AH's 3rd Reich and CEaW the German player is free to attack Russia at any time. Maybe a historical argument could be make that Hilter's generals would have successfully convinced him with France still in the war that an invasion of Russia was not a wise thing. However; I have a hard time seeing how they could have convinced him not to invade after France was conquered if that is what he wanted to do. It's not like the US where it took a Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor to get them into the war. And even after that Roosevelt was saved the effort of having to go to the US Congress and ask them for a declaration of war against Germany and Italy only by the fact that Germany declared war on the US.
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:31 pm
by lavisj
ORIGINAL: Bibs
Even excluding entry markers, you should be able to get a defensive garrison total of 60 by May/Jun 1941. With the inclusion of Axis minor allies, the Germans can only get an offensive garrison total of around 110. Unless you are unlucky, you probably have sufficient forces to keep the Germans below that vital 2:1 throughout 1941.
It clear that this it is design intent for the USSR to be able to prevent a 1941 Barb. I find this odd in that it makes the game like WIF5 where it was always better to spend 1941 beating the CW to death and then go to Russia in 1942. I found the WIF5 42 Barb to usually be successful and it seems FE has gone the route of keeping this flow, but making the Russians better equipped to deal with it.
I should have read the scenario booklet [:)]
I am amazed that this was the designer intent to put the decision of a 1941 Barbarossa solely in the hands of the Russian player.
I wonder why the designer would want to force the game to go into one specific strategic route, which is an anti-CW first route? That would explain though, why ADG never changed the N-S pact rules (or why it was introduced in the first place, as I know it did not exist in the 4th edition).
I am also not convinced that all 1941 Barbarossa will result in an Axis win 90% of the time. Sure Russia may be pushed on to the Asian map, but that does not mean they are doomed.
I have asked for statistic on the issue on the yahoo WIF list. So if you have done 1941 Barbarossa, please you can go there and sent me an email with your experience. So, far, I have only had a few responses (less than 10) and there were no blow outs.
Jerome
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:19 pm
by Zorachus99
I'm taken aback. Haven't read the scenario booklet for years. How could you make a WWII game and intend for Barbarossa to be impossible?
Do the German Scenario notes discuss the fact that if USSR decides to prevent Barbarossa, they can?
I'm absolutely baffled that the intent is for Germany to do either Sealion, Med, or 'Nothing' as Germany for all of '41.
Baffled.
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:38 pm
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: Bibs
Was the original intent of the Pact rule to try and
1) force the Russians to deploy towards the border (or give them a reason to), or
2) Keep the Germans from totally stripping Poland of units under threat that the USSR could break the pact in 1940?
3) Keep the Germans from doing a 1940 Barbarossa (or allow the Russians to prevent one)
4) A general rule for all pacts that has been applied to the N-S pact.
It doesn't seem like there could ever be a rule that achieves #1 except to force it directly. No sane Russian player is going to deploy near the border unless there is an overwhelming chance to prevent a German attack. I also can't see a Russian player breaking the pact (#2) in 1940 for similar reasons unless there are really unusual circumstances.
Is a 1940 Barbarossa an issue? Even in the last game I played where the N/D and J/F turns had lots of decent weather it was M/J 40 before France fell so getting the units back east to attack in good weather would require some lucky weather rolls. Has anyone ever just gone right from Poland into the USSR in early 1940?
If you read the USSR synopsis in the scenario booklet, it states.
Even excluding entry markers, you should be able to get a defensive garrison total of 60 by May/Jun 1941. With the inclusion of Axis minor allies, the Germans can only get an offensive garrison total of around 110. Unless you are unlucky, you probably have sufficient forces to keep the Germans below that vital 2:1 throughout 1941.
It clear that this it is design intent for the USSR to be able to prevent a 1941 Barb. I find this odd in that it makes the game like WIF5 where it was always better to spend 1941 beating the CW to death and then go to Russia in 1942. I found the WIF5 42 Barb to usually be successful and it seems FE has gone the route of keeping this flow, but making the Russians better equipped to deal with it.
What makes this frustrating for some players is that in most of the rest of the game we have freedom to do things that our real-life counterparts could never have done. I use as an example, if the Germans declare war on Holland, Belgium stays completely neutral. It’s what they might have done, but they might not and Hitler couldn’t (or wouldn’t) take the risk that Belgium (or Holland in reverse) might allow the Allies in if the other was attacked. In WIF you know with 100% certainty that they will do nothing if the other is attacked, and furthermore Belgium will be surprised by a German attack despite seeing Holland get pummeled a day earlier. Another example is that politically, the British govt. had to deploy a BEF to France. But many players will skip a BEF and declare war on Italy in addition.
But for the USSR, the German does not have the freedom to attack them based on a Pact that is imposed on the player and in the midst of all the freedom, we are unable to do one thing that happend historically.
Your reference to the designer notes was a real eye-opener!
There seems to be a significant number of players who disagree with that design decision:
the USSR can prevent a DOW by Germany in 1941 with reasonable certainty.
===
While changing the values for the garrisons has a lot of attraction to me personally, it seems too fine grained. Getting the values correct might require several passes and any changes in the unit composition of the force pools for either side could affect this substantially.
I like the taking of Paris as a criterion. One of Germany's primary concerns throughout WW II was the two front war which caused them so much grief in WW I. I am not as convinced about the need to conquer the Balkans, or Greece in particular.
Using Paris as a binary condition seems too abrupt: one turn Germany can not DOW the USSR and the next turn it can. How about:
#1
the taking of Paris increases the offensive garrison value of the German units by 20%?. This requires Germany to transfer the bulk of its units from the west to the east before it can DOW the USSR. The delay gives the USSR time to reposition its units away from the front line.
===
Here is a refinement of another idea I proposed that has met with some positive replies. As background it is useful to state the current rule (in summary).
Garrison conditions for Germany to DOW the USSR:
1939 - not possible.
1940 - 2:1 ratio but defenders are doubled (2X)
1941 - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X)
1942 - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/2)
.
.
.
I propose:
#2
1939 - not possible.
1940 - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 2X)
1941 (1st 6 months) - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X)
1941 (2nd 6 months) - 3:2 ratio (defenders are X)
1942 - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/2)
.
.
.
===
And a combination of #1 and #2:
#3
the change in required ratio only occurs in Paris has been taken.
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:07 pm
by hakon
I wonder how many people have left wif because of or partly because of the stuffing rule.....
I know that I would have, if my group hadn't usually agreed to play with a rule similar to the Lebensraum option above. Even when I play, or intend to play Russia, I always suggest such a rule (preferably before bidding).
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:11 pm
by Bibs
ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
I'm taken aback. Haven't read the scenario booklet for years. How could you make a WWII game and intend for Barbarossa to be impossible?
Do the German Scenario notes discuss the fact that if USSR decides to prevent Barbarossa, they can?
I'm absolutely baffled that the intent is for Germany to do either Sealion, Med, or 'Nothing' as Germany for all of '41.
Baffled.
It has this gem
Irrespective of your strategy, you need to build aircraft from the start of the game. Your first turn production is at least 17 (22 x 0.75), less the 2 you must give to Stalin, leaving you 15, enough for 2 aircraft and 5 pilots (and you thought you were short of money). The next turn you can build 3 aircraft and 3 pilots, and in Jan/Feb, 4 aircraft and 2 pilots giving you 8 additional aircraft by May/Jun 1940. 21 German aircraft should dominate the skies over France in summer.
Seems like with all those planes breaking the garrison is pretty much gone. 8 additional planes seems excessive to me.
Othewise it's a bit schizophrenic
a 1941 Operation Barbarossa is superior to a 1942 attack, even if the 1942 attack is combined with a drive through Iraq and Persia.
The advantage a 1942 assault does have is that it gives you all of 1941 to take Gibraltar and Suez and advance on the Soviet Union via Persia.
Nowadays (unfortunately for you), if you go for the Gibraltar option, you will pay a real military cost (unless you can do over France in early 1940, Gibraltar by late 1940, and back to the eastern front for a Jul/Aug 1941 Barbarossa. Ahhhh.....now we’re talking).
If you don’t get lots of summer weather in 1941, don’t despair, 1942 should still see you with 50 to 60 corps in Russia (far stronger than the Russians) and open terrain for an offensive that may yet topple them (unless the Allies are near Paris or Rome).
So it really doesn't address that other than to say a 1941 Barb is better, but don't worry you kick him around in 42 anyway.
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:28 pm
by hakon
Steve
My proposal was that holding Paris would be sufficient in 1941 and on (to prevent 1940 barbs after a France First.). Using Paris (or alternatively conquest/vichification of France) as a condition is easy to defend based on the German fear of having to fight a two front war, as well as on the confidence boost that was for the Germans to beat their old enemy.
As for your proposal, it seems a bit unstructured. Would it apply to other pacts, such as between Japan and Russia, for instance?
Maybe modifiy it like this:
#4
Year0 - not possible.
Year1 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 2X)
Year1 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 3X/2)
Year2 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X)
Year2 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are 3X/4)
Year3 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/2)
Year3 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/3)
Year4 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/4)
later - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/5)
Being somewhat continous, this is reasonably easy to remember, can be applied to all pacts, and ensures that a historical Barb is possible. Since its still hard to break the garrison in 1940, I don't think including France in it makes any sense, since a player will rarely want to DOW Russia while being at war with France anyway.
But I still think that the Lebensraum option has the advantage of being simpler.
Cheers
Hakon
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:49 pm
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: hakon
Steve
My proposal was that holding Paris would be sufficient in 1941 and on (to prevent 1940 barbs after a France First.). Using Paris (or alternatively conquest/vichification of France) as a condition is easy to defend based on the German fear of having to fight a two front war, as well as on the confidence boost that was for the Germans to beat their old enemy.
As for your proposal, it seems a bit unstructured. Would it apply to other pacts, such as between Japan and Russia, for instance?
Maybe modifiy it like this:
#4
Year0 - not possible.
Year1 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 2X)
Year1 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 3X/2)
Year2 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X)
Year2 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are 3X/4)
Year3 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/2)
Year3 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/3)
Year4 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/4)
later - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/5)
Being somewhat continous, this is reasonably easy to remember, can be applied to all pacts, and ensures that a historical Barb is possible. Since its still hard to break the garrison in 1940, I don't think including France in it makes any sense, since a player will rarely want to DOW Russia while being at war with France anyway.
But I still think that the Lebensraum option has the advantage of being simpler.
Cheers
Hakon
I was trying to leave the rule unchanged for all pacts except for the German (offensive) side of the USSR-Nazi pact. And then I was just changing it in one place. Actually, in the last couple of hours I thought that
having the 3:2 ratio kick in in May/June would be better that July/August.
To repeat myself, I was looking at a single point change to the rule, not a global rewrite.
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:50 pm
by Zorachus99
Clearly these notes are next to worthless when deciding grand strategy. The language assumes you 'can' be at war in '41, and even encourages you if you get poor weather in the summer of '41.
Very counter-intuitive for a game that is designed for the Russian player to prevent Barb.
I'm in shock that the game was re-designed to prevent the historical option.... flabbergasted even.
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:51 pm
by michaelbaldur
I don´t see the need for any changes ..
if the players want to stuff the border. there is alot of thing he can´t do. like Persia, Finland, Turkey or something agianst japan ....if the player want to stuff, he have to be passive. if he takes alot of losses early or get bugged down somewhere he can´t stuff.
historicaly Russia had a large part of the army in the East.
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:01 pm
by micheljq
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I like the taking of Paris as a criterion. One of Germany's primary concerns throughout WW II was the two front war which caused them so much grief in WW I. I am not as convinced about the need to conquer the Balkans, or Greece in particular.
Little parenthesis :
Greece was invaded by Mussolini, he did ask the help of Germany when he saw things turning bad for the italian army and the germans did intervene, but it was not the original plan and it had nothing to do with USSR directly. Nevertheless, many sources confirm that the invasion of Greece did delay Barbarossa.
Balkan was invaded in 1941 if I am not mistaken, the government there changed alignment. At first being proAxis and later being proBritish, I think after a coup. The austrian caporal was therefore concerned about a possible british intervention in Yugoslavia and did decide to invade the country.
RE: 'stuffing' the border
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:03 pm
by Zorachus99
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: hakon
Steve
My proposal was that holding Paris would be sufficient in 1941 and on (to prevent 1940 barbs after a France First.). Using Paris (or alternatively conquest/vichification of France) as a condition is easy to defend based on the German fear of having to fight a two front war, as well as on the confidence boost that was for the Germans to beat their old enemy.
As for your proposal, it seems a bit unstructured. Would it apply to other pacts, such as between Japan and Russia, for instance?
Maybe modifiy it like this:
#4
Year0 - not possible.
Year1 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 2X)
Year1 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 3X/2)
Year2 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X)
Year2 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are 3X/4)
Year3 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/2)
Year3 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/3)
Year4 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/4)
later - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/5)
Being somewhat continous, this is reasonably easy to remember, can be applied to all pacts, and ensures that a historical Barb is possible. Since its still hard to break the garrison in 1940, I don't think including France in it makes any sense, since a player will rarely want to DOW Russia while being at war with France anyway.
But I still think that the Lebensraum option has the advantage of being simpler.
Cheers
Hakon
I was trying to leave the rule unchanged for all pacts except for the German (offensive) side of the USSR-Nazi pact. And then I was just changing it in one place. Actually, in the last couple of hours I thought that
having the 3:2 ratio kick in in May/June would be better that July/August.
To repeat myself, I was looking at a single point change to the rule, not a global rewrite.
I would say May/Jun is probably very close to correct for a ratio of 3:2. Theoretically, many historians have pondered what would have happend to the USSR if the Greek escapade had not happened.
However, on the flip side, there should be a cost to not DOW'ing Greece, perhaps a guaranteed US entry chit if Athens isn't Axis controlled, and perhaps even a second one if Belgrade isn't axis controlled.
Most of the non-historical activities in the game have a large US entry cost. Not attacking Greece shouldn't be an entirely upside affair for the Axis. While Greece is neutral it's quite a bit more difficult to bomb Ploesti from Africa for example, which is a historical deviation.