Next Patch

[cpdeyoung]

Dear Uxbridge,

Now I am confused a bit.  The "house rules" I recommend prohibit any neutral to beligerent PP transfer, except for lend lease to Great Britain on the scheduled event date, and to the Soviet Union, on their scheduled event date.  This would mean that neutral to beligerent transfer was limited to 50PP from May 1941 to June 1941 and then 100PP until American beligerency.  These lend lease events enable PP transfers that the house rule prohibits, but that did historically occur.  Are you playing with unlimited PP transfer from neutrals to beligerents, but the USA is adjusted so they will have to wait until they have enough?

If this is the case how do you justify it?  Neutrals convoys cannot be attacked because they are, well, neutral.  The expectation is that neutrals remain neutral and not ship war materials to nations at war.  Surely the Royal Navy would intercept Romanian convoys going to Germany.  Such interception is not allowed in the game, so by "house rule" I prohibit neutral to beligerent convoys.

What "French problem" are you solving since the house rule would prohibit any neutral from sending a PP to France since she begins the game as a beligerent?

I am not asking you to be involved in "the discussion" but I think you may feel that it deals with PP transfers from the USA when neutral.  Such transfers are prohibited by "house rule".

Chuck

Edited to fix typos

[cpdeyoung]

I realize that there may be some confusion about the "house rule" Gary and I are playing with, and that I recommend, so I quote it from an above post :
 

I recommend playing with a house rule summarized as :

Beligerent convoys to beligerent - Ok
Beligerent convoys to neutral - Ok
Neutral convoys to neutral - Ok
Neutral convoys to beligerent -Nope, except Lend lease.

 
Chuck

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Dear Uxbridge,

Now I am confused a bit.  The "house rules" I recommend prohibit any neutral to beligerent PP transfer, except for lend lease to Great Britain on the scheduled event date, and to the Soviet Union, on their scheduled event date.  This would mean that neutral to beligerent transfer was limited to 50PP from May 1941 to June 1941 and then 100PP until American beligerency.  These lend lease events enable PP transfers that the house rule prohibits, but that did historically occur.  Are you playing with unlimited PP transfer from neutrals to beligerents, but the USA is adjusted so they will have to wait until they have enough?

If this is the case how do you justify it?  Neutrals convoys cannot be attacked because they are, well, neutral.  The expectation is that neutrals remain neutral and not ship war materials to nations at war.  Surely the Royal Navy would intercept Romanian convoys going to Germany.  Such interception is not allowed in the game, so by "house rule" I prohibit neutral to beligerent convoys.

What "French problem" are you solving since the house rule would prohibit any neutral from sending a PP to France since she begins the game as a beligerent?

I am not asking you to be involved in "the discussion" but I think you may feel that it deals with PP transfers from the USA when neutral.  Such transfers are prohibited by "house rule".

Chuck

Edited to fix typos

Acctually I haven't even read your house rules, not the entire thread either. I was just "passing" and saw that our solutions might also benefit you.

The -1350 on USA will stop early use of American PPs in UK and France.

The liberty to move PPs between countries is limited to Majors giving Minors, and is to be used for development only; i.e. it is not allowed to give PPs to build new units. Now, we're using a pre-determined reinforcement schedule and a fixed total OOB, so it's not possible for neutrals to build much anyway. These PP-movements represent knowledge and money in our world, not hardware, therefore convoy-issues are never at stake.

We have made a number of other nice changes as well. The problem with difficult co-operation between Italian and German units in NA, for an example, have been solved by simply letting the Italians get a number of good DAK-units in late 1940. [;)]

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: balto

I just realized I do not know how to do that? 

Can you walk me thru how to amp up the research and most of all, give USA -1350 PP?

Open the scenario you're using and copy the "countries.csv"-file to somewhere safe.

Then open the (original) file with notepad or something and locate the line starting with "53". This is the setting for the USA.

Replace this entire line with the one below, while being careful not to add any empty spaces:

53;1;USA;0x00A0C544;0x00FFFFFF;0x008e965a;0x00FFFFFF;0;0;1;0;100;0;0;1;1;1;1;1;1;0;-1350;0;6;250;4;6;0;0;3;2;3;0;0;3;0;0;0;0;0;65;130;876;0;0;0;0;0;20;1;4;2;0;3;0;24;30;38;50;0;0;0;0

The above should be one long line, it's the - (minus) sign that breaks it.

This done, you should have the same settings for the USA as we have. Note that the colour of the units will change as well.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge


The -1350 on USA will stop early use of American PPs in UK and France.

It will also prevent the USA from entering the war with units that far outclass every other nation. The ongoing AAR shows that before the USA has even entered the war it has reached level 5 artillery and is researching level 3 armor, this even after sending PP's to Russia and the UK. This is wrong though there isn't much else for the US to do with their PP's.

[balto]

Uxbridge, I just zipped thru a few turns to see if I did it correctly.  THAT WORKS!!!!  Thank you very much for those easy to follow instructions.   The color change is also very cool.

I look forward to playing the AI with the new setting.  I think this (combined with getting rid of the Vichy option) will do the trick. 

Thank you.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: balto

Uxbridge, I just zipped thru a few turns to see if I did it correctly.  THAT WORKS!!!!  Thank you very much for those easy to follow instructions.   The color change is also very cool.

I look forward to playing the AI with the new setting.  I think this (combined with getting rid of the Vichy option) will do the trick. 

Thank you.

So did I -- HOW COOL! Elegant fix, Uxbridge.[&o]
I also agree with Balto that the choice of allowing the Vichy event should lie exclusively with the Axis (assuming a relatively unchanged course of history up to the Fall of France.) See my post of January 15, above.
If this course of improvement continues, I might consider playing a PBEM myself (horrors!)

[cpdeyoung]

Dear James,
 
I like playing WW2:RtV and would like to defend the design decisions that have given me a game I really enjoy.  I don't think the game need much change on these matters, so please take these comments in that spirit.
 

This is wrong though there isn't much else for the US to do with their PP's.

The overall level of American units still affects them even if they are doing research.  My L5 infantry corps is currently a 5-?, 5-1 using current supply.  The Germans surely outclass this.  I reached this level using three light bulbs for something like 40 turns.  When do you think the Americans should be allowed to begin research.
 

even after sending PP's to Russia and the UK

I started sending PPs to the USSR about five turns ago, and have only been sending them to the British about a dozen. What does lend lease have to do with it?
 

The -1350 on USA will stop early use of American PPs in UK and France.

It will also ...

Why "also"?  Not a single American PP ever went to France.  Not one, as per the 'house rules".  Great Britain has received only those allowed by Lend Lease, which if engineered out of this game makes it, as Michael the Pole says "science fiction".
 
Where has there been any abuse of PP shipment?  Why make the Americans have many, weaker units?  Why is there this concern with this nation that may not make it to the continent for 50 more turns?  Historically American entry was huge and it should be huge in any wargame that simulates World War 2.  I have never rolled over the Axis with the Americans and don't expect to roll over Gary's Germans.  Have you found the Americans to be too strong in your games?
 
Chuck
 

[cpdeyoung]

I know this is getting old, but please let me address the Vichy issue.
 
Currently the fall of Paris (and perhaps some other event) causes the French to have the opportunity to accept an armistice, which will cause a neutral nation, the Vichy French.  If they accept it the state is estabilished, the Axis forces within that state are scooted back to the force pool.  If they do not accept it the war goes on.
 
Perhaps the Axis does not want such an armistice offered.  I have previously stated that I am fine with such a choice for the Axis, that is to offer or not.
 
In any case France will stop fighting in three circumstances :
1. the game ends.
2. they accept the armistice.
3. all French controlled VP cities are taken from them. France is defeated and "surrenders".
 
If you remove point 2. how have you changed the game?  Points 1 and 3 still remain the only way to have France leave the war.
 
The only problems I have with removing point 2 has to do with a small historical problem : it is what happened.
 
Chuck

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

I know this is getting old, but please let me address the Vichy issue.

Currently the fall of Paris (and perhaps some other event) causes the French to have the opportunity to accept an armistice, which will cause a neutral nation, the Vichy French.  If they accept it the state is estabilished, the Axis forces within that state are scooted back to the force pool.  If they do not accept it the war goes on.

Perhaps the Axis does not want such an armistice offered.  I have previously stated that I am fine with such a choice for the Axis, that is to offer or not.

In any case France will stop fighting in three circumstances :
1. the game ends.
2. they accept the armistice.
3. all French controlled VP cities are taken from them. France is defeated and "surrenders".

If you remove point 2. how have you changed the game?  Points 1 and 3 still remain the only way to have France leave the war.

The only problems I have with removing point 2 has to do with a small historical problem : it is what happened.

Chuck

Chuck, Having never played a human opponent, I'm at some disadvantage on this, but my problem with Vichy is this. I had thought that the Germans were required to take Amsterdam, Paris and Metz to trigger Vichy (but just having replayed Europe 40 through th the Vichy Trigger) apparently it is enough for the Germans to take Amsterdam, Brussels, Lilly and Paris. At this point, the Axis player is allowed to OFFER the Vichy armistice to the Allied playe who then has the choice of accepting it or continuing the war with the French. That Allied choice is my problem. Historicaly, once Paris had fallen and Fall Rot (the second German offensive) had broken the French line, France was through, and NOTHING, not the Pittsburgh Steelers, not a band of Archangels with 50 cal machine guns, not a UN Security Council resolution deploring the situation, was going to keep them in.
The Axis player should have the choice of IMPOSING Vichy.

[cpdeyoung]

Dear Michael,
 
Sorry, but I do not know any mechanism the Germans had to coerce the French.  I know in reality the French were in big trouble, but in my games I may lose Paris, but I have a much better looking French situation than they had.  The Germans were outside Moscow in 1941 too, but if Gary wants to match them he cannot "impose" his way there, he has to fight his way there.  It is not all that much trouble to take Marseille and Metz as well as Paris.  Remember the French are basically out of supply in huge areas of the country after the fall of the supply portal. If the Italians and Germans simply press a campaign to Marseille this is all moot.
 
I do not think the French should de defeated when their enemy wants them to be defeated.  I think the defeat of France comes pretty regularly in this game, and as the Axis I have never failed to obtain this victory.  Please remember also that there are consequences to fighting on beyond Vichy. The French colonies in North Africa will be German.  The Germans can garrison the French coasts without considering the loyalties of a big neutral.
 
Chuck 

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

That Allied choice is my problem. Historicaly, once Paris had fallen and Fall Rot (the second German offensive) had broken the French line, France was through, and NOTHING, not the Pittsburgh Steelers, not a band of Archangels with 50 cal machine guns, not a UN Security Council resolution deploring the situation, was going to keep them in.
The Axis player should have the choice of IMPOSING Vichy.

You were batting 1000 Michael, until now. With all due respect for your normally sagacious opinions, the game has to have enough flexibility to allow some what-ifs.

What if Petain had had a 1918 moment in his old age, and suddenly decided he'd never surrender - a 'Nuts' moment, perhaps, to the German offer of an armistace?

Trying to legislate certain outcomes in the game is just too stultifying. Why not outlaw all German paratroopers after 1941, for instance? The list could go on endlessly.

It's my opinion that when playing a human opponent, if one wants to play along historical lines, then house rules are the only way to go, like an agreement to accept Vichy if offered.

[doomtrader]

With the new update France will also have the possibility to surrender or to keep fighting, but now second option will bring high Unrest hit.

[Michael the Pole]

Chuck and Gary (tag-teaming me now!)
I agree with what you're saying, and IMHO it comes back to what I've been saying about a syatem for political unrest imposing (or perhaps creating a possibility of) a "peace at any price" coup.
What actually happened in France after Fall Rot opened and Paris fell was this. The French Prime Minister, Reynaud, was desperate to keep France in the war. He appealed to Churchill, who took an extremely risky flight to Southern France and met with the French War Council where he essentially offered them ANYTHING, up to and including union with the United Kingdom if they would continue the war. They universaly refused. The only person of any consequence, other than Reynaud, who had ANY interest in continuing the war was a newly promoted Brig. Gen named DeGaulle who had no political clout whatsoever. The Council gave Reynaud the choice of asking the Germans for an armistice or resignation. When he refused, he was replaced with Petain.
So who or what is going to keep France in the war? (The human player must be playing in the persona of some government official) The Prime Minister of France acting in direct conjunction with the Prime Minister of Great Britain together didn't have the political weight to do it. Once Paris falls and the Germans start south or west, France has lost it's will to continue the war. And after all, isn't that the whole point of waging war? Destroy the enemies will to continue to fight.
And as for the Germans, the reason they accepted Vichy was the knowledge that they could draw the French fleet and her colonies together with their not insignificant colonial forces into a friendly neutrality. This was so damaging to the Allies that Churchill was compeled to order the Royal Navy to fire on and sink major units of the French Navy that were attempting to return to France from ports in North Africa. The resentment that this caused has damaged Anglo/French relations for years. All in all, Vichy was an excellent deal for the Nazis -- that's why they created it. Because the French would have accepted anything short of uncond. surrender to get out of the war.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

With the new update France will also have the possibility to surrender or to keep fighting, but now second option will bring high Unrest hit.

Doom, I think that's close, but is actually backwards. The French asked (more accurately, begged)for Vichy because of their unacceptably high unrest value. What should happen is that the unrest value should trigger an appeal for an armistice.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

That Allied choice is my problem. Historicaly, once Paris had fallen and Fall Rot (the second German offensive) had broken the French line, France was through, and NOTHING, not the Pittsburgh Steelers, not a band of Archangels with 50 cal machine guns, not a UN Security Council resolution deploring the situation, was going to keep them in.
The Axis player should have the choice of IMPOSING Vichy.

You were batting 1000 Michael, until now. With all due respect for your normally sagacious opinions, the game has to have enough flexibility to allow some what-ifs.

What if Petain had had a 1918 moment in his old age, and suddenly decided he'd never surrender - a 'Nuts' moment, perhaps, to the German offer of an armistace?

Trying to legislate certain outcomes in the game is just too stultifying. Why not outlaw all German paratroopers after 1941, for instance? The list could go on endlessly.

It's my opinion that when playing a human opponent, if one wants to play along historical lines, then house rules are the only way to go, like an agreement to accept Vichy if offered.

You're probably right about the house rule solution, Chuck, although, as you know, I hate to paper over a systems problem with an arbitrary rule. I think Doomtrader, our honored leader, is on the right track, but I fon't know if we're going to be allowed to carry this arguement to its logical conclusion.
If the military/political situation in France became so dire that the government laid down in the dust, whining to the Germans to "please dont hurt us anymore" (as they actually did, in violation of every solemn promise to their allies) (see my above post about the French and accordions) it ought to be seen as a high unrest value. A sufficiently high unrest value should trigger a request for an armistice.
As for Petain, he was a senile empty suit in June '40. That's why the French cheese eating S. M's put him up.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Dear James,

I like playing WW2:RtV and would like to defend the design decisions that have given me a game I really enjoy.  I don't think the game need much change on these matters, so please take these comments in that spirit.

This is wrong though there isn't much else for the US to do with their PP's.

The overall level of American units still affects them even if they are doing research.  My L5 infantry corps is currently a 5-?, 5-1 using current supply.  The Germans surely outclass this.  I reached this level using three light bulbs for something like 40 turns.  When do you think the Americans should be allowed to begin research.

What I meant is there is nothing else for the USA to do until 1942 but research and send aid. The USA gets a lot of PP's during that time, alomost 2 1/2 years. To be able to have, in game terms, the most technologically advance military before they even enter the war is jsut wrong. The negative PP's are one way of addressing this as no research can occur for a long time. Another way would be to slow down their PP's growth or even give negative reasearch levels. As it stands the USA is too powerfuly to early. Level 5 infantry are 8's, 9's and 10's once you enter the war, the most powerful infantry in the game. To have that when you ENTER the war is just to much for the Axis to overcome. Since you will have no need to research to spend more that 1500 total PP's after you enter, less than one summers worth, you will be able to field a massive army of the highest quality.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

The Axis player should have the choice of IMPOSING Vichy.

I agree with that. As it stands there is no reason for the Allies to accept it. The longer it takes for France to fall the better it is for the Allies.

[doomtrader]

The longer it takes for France to fall the better it is for the Allies

not after Germans propose armistice

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

The longer it takes for France to fall the better it is for the Allies

not after Germans propose armistice

Why is France treated differently than all other countries? If armistice can be offered to them under certain circumstances why can't one be offered to Italy or Russia or Romania that can either be accepted or refused by the owner not the conquerer? If the event is going to stay in the game then I think it should be the Axis choice whether France accepts or not.