Matrix Games Forums

A small update from 2.21y to 2.21z

Changes:
- Bombur updated a SFT/Item that was showing as a wrong type.
- Ernie updated the map, by changing some map names. Mainly Kaipeda was wrongly spelled, Klaipeda is the correct form. Königsberg label almost overlapping another nearby city. Label1, changed to Label2, for Königsberg.

Future changes (May or may not be implemented, input welcome)

- US cannot takeover defending as defending power as long as they are in isolationism mode.
- US cannot try to break isolationism until there is a war (Or rather until Germany or Italy at war)
- Force reduction for minors.
- Britain and France no longer able to make alliances/DOW until they are DOWed or protect a minor.

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

A small update from 2.21y to 2.21z

Changes:
- Bombur updated a SFT/Item that was showing as a wrong type.
- Ernie updated the map, by changing some map names. Mainly Kaipeda was wrongly spelled, Klaipeda is the correct form. Königsberg label almost overlapping another nearby city. Label1, changed to Label2, for Königsberg.

Future changes (May or may not be implemented, input welcome)

- US cannot takeover defending as defending power as long as they are in isolationism mode.
- US cannot try to break isolationism until there is a war (Or rather until Germany or Italy at war)
- Force reduction for minors.
- Britain and France no longer able to make alliances/DOW they are DOWed or protect a minor.

I hope "US cannot try..." means that the only way they can break isolationism is unless they are directly attacked or the use of Political Points. I assume that the first means they cannot take over a nation until they break isolationism. Or that they cannot become the most favored nation? Yeah I thought minors were too strong under the current scenario. France and Britain cannot ally to each other?? Or they cannot take over a minor until that minor is attacked or they are at war?

Yes, I was thinking that the US still can be most favoured nation, but that won't result in them taking over when the minor is attacked, rather that will fall on the 2nd most favoured. The only way US if this was implemented is to break isolationism is via PPs or being attacked.

Unfortunately I cannot make Britain and France unable to attack Germany/Italy/Japan at will, unless I make them diplomatically frozen, that is give them a dip.block. That means, no diplomatic (via the games inbuilt mechanisms not the ones i put in via cards) is available. So no DOW no Alliances, until one of them is at war, basically.

How about if they (USA) take over via influence points? Include Britain and France. In my own game I used events to control take over including checking to see if certain conditions were met as well as just influence points. I never finished my game because weather proved more difficult than I envisioned.

As I envisage it, they will still be able to influence nations and take them over. Think of it as a joint defence pact.

I have a small comment: preventing France and GB from making an alliance before they are at war will cripple France (even more), given it is dependent on imported supplies that usually are given by a friendly GB. I wouldn´t implement this tem. I agree completely with the remaining suggestions.

I'm not sure the American public in 1938-1941 would have been in favor of such a defense pact because they wanted to stay out of the WAR. At least until they broke isolationism or were attacked. Remember it took an attack on US territory for the US to declare war. (Although FDR had ordered the Navy to attack German subs on sight in May 1941.)

1 - US cannot takeover defending as defending power as long as they are in isolationism mode.
2 - US cannot try to break isolationism until there is a war (Or rather until Germany or Italy at war)
3 - Force reduction for minors.
4 - Britain and France no longer able to make alliances/DOW until they are DOWed or protect a minor.

1a - I think an exception must be made for the western hemisphere. I believe the USA would have enforced the Monroe Doctrine even in a time of isolationism.
1b - The power which would really defend should be revealed so the prospective attacker knows who they would be at war with if they attack.
1c - This seems to apply only in the period between becoming MFN and taking over the country. Once the country is taken over becoming US territory with US troops on soil they must be able to defend the country. This was the case in Game 23. The contentious invasion by the Soviets was an attack on the USA, not on Finland. Once the USA has taken over Portugal as I am about to do in Game 25, and have done in Game 23, then USA troops on "US soil" will fill the country. Any attack on USA(Portugal) would be defended by the USA, not some other power playing with US troops.
1d - Other than a careless mistake has anyone ever attacked a minor where the USA was MFN anyway?

2 - Are you saying the USA cannot attempt to reduce isolationism by PP expenditure till Germany or Italy are actively at war?

3 - In game 25 Poland is going into its eighth month of valiant defense against Germany, and also the USSR for multiple turns. They seem too powerful, but I am very proud of them!

4 - What are you addressing here? In Game 23 the British attacked Germany because they felt the U-boats were too great a threat. A more experienced player would probably not have done this, but Britain and France rarely attack Germany, or Italy. They usually are in a war because a power attacks Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands etc.

Chuck

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

1 - US cannot takeover defending as defending power as long as they are in isolationism mode.
2 - US cannot try to break isolationism until there is a war (Or rather until Germany or Italy at war)
3 - Force reduction for minors.
4 - Britain and France no longer able to make alliances/DOW until they are DOWed or protect a minor.

1a - I think an exception must be made for the western hemisphere. I believe the USA would have enforced the Monroe Doctrine even in a time of isolationism.

Yes, I have been thinking about that too.

1b - The power which would really defend should be revealed so the prospective attacker knows who they would be at war with if they attack.

That was the plan, but it also would allow a nation the was MFN to see who was trying to take over a minor they were in the lead with. But I will try to do it anyway.

1c - This seems to apply only in the period between becoming MFN and taking over the country. Once the country is taken over becoming US territory with US troops on soil they must be able to defend the country. This was the case in Game 23. The contentious invasion by the Soviets was an attack on the USA, not on Finland. Once the USA has taken over Portugal as I am about to do in Game 25, and have done in Game 23, then USA troops on "US soil" will fill the country. Any attack on USA(Portugal) would be defended by the USA, not some other power playing with US troops.

Of course, Larry might have a different idea, but I am not convinced. I am at least leaning more to your interpretation.

1d - Other than a careless mistake has anyone ever attacked a minor where the USA was MFN anyway?

I am not sure. I just grew tired of the US trying to make Denmark or Finland a "protected nation" that nobody would attack. Also it would be a way to prevent the US from entering the war early.

2 - Are you saying the USA cannot attempt to reduce isolationism by PP expenditure till Germany or Italy are actively at war?

Yes.

3 - In game 25 Poland is going into its eighth month of valiant defense against Germany, and also the USSR for multiple turns. They seem too powerful, but I am very proud of them!

Yeah, those Poles sure seem able to put up quite a fight, eh? I think I have to do something about it.

4 - What are you addressing here? In Game 23 the British attacked Germany because they felt the U-boats were too great a threat. A more experienced player would probably not have done this, but Britain and France rarely attack Germany, or Italy. They usually are in a war because a power attacks Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands etc.

Just dotting the i's and crossing the t's. I wanted Germany to feel more secure, basically.

Chuck

As always your oppinion is valuable to me.

Dot those "i's", cross those "t's"!

This mod-game is wonderful. I can't help wondering if the gaming world is yet aware of it?

I know ATG is well respected, but I wonder is SC3 and WiF players know this alternative is available. I am not saying we would draw many from SC3 and WiF, but they might want a change of pace too.

Ernie, have you looked a bit at the extensive card action in SC3? Lots of events = lots of coding, I am sure.

Chuck

I'll let you in on a secret I don't know what SC3 is...

Strategic Command WWII War in Europe

tt.asp?forumid=1252

Yeah, it's not out yet. So I'd have to wait for the release. Definately something I may look into.

I think a block on USA using diplomatic action until Nations are at war somewhere (other than Japan/China) is the way to go with USA being most favored nation to all nations in the Western Hemisphere. Not sure about that last part. Or block diplomatic action until they break isolationism. (Diplomatic action I think is the name of the card that allows a nation to change it's influence points in another neutral nation..)
I agree with 1a. To make take overs less likely a way would be to subtract nations B-F influences from nations A influence before you calculate take overs. I think take overs via influence should be unlikely...although historically German did take over nations via influence.

Maybe Larry, your idea can replace some of those that I was thinking of implementing... Good thinking there.

Ok, I've made a new build. I am happy to announce the availability of GD 1938 version 2.22d.

Changes Include:

- Making some city names more readable.
- Filling in Info of who did what on the scenario in the Square that previously only held the information that I had made the map.
- Some minors have had reduced their forces, others have had them increased a smidge. Repositioned defences to reflect new composition of minor forces.
- US Diplomacy now limited to Investigate minor, and Japan embargo cards, while isolationist.

I hope you enjoy this new version!

Thank you erniescwitz and of course Bomber for his work also.

Just need a list of players willing to play in game 26 of GD1938, sounds better for the Germans with not quite such a daunting task in the initial stages of the game. State preference for major power.

Bombur and I have already spoken about participating in a test, and we were looking for a third and fourth player. We would like to have China played by someone other than GB, France and US.

I will leave the organising to you and Bombur, just throwing my hat in the ring Nil Desperandum.

Thanks for wanting to play, we will probably ask you to play the game with us