How to ruin the game?

[stjeand]

ORIGINAL: MorningDew

I repeat - historically the UK could never have fielded that kind of army - I believe what is shown exceeds the UK army at home, in France and in Africa in 1940.

I agree...but then so does the German Army and quite possibly the French army.
Though they had a huge army it was just trained like it would be WW I again.

I know that the goal of this game was not to be historical...

Just need to find the balance is all.

[ComadrejaKorp]

ORIGINAL: stjeand

ORIGINAL: MorningDew

I repeat - historically the UK could never have fielded that kind of army - I believe what is shown exceeds the UK army at home, in France and in Africa in 1940.

I agree...but then so does the German Army and quite possibly the French army.
Though they had a huge army it was just trained like it would be WW I again.

I know that the goal of this game was not to be historical...

Just need to find the balance is all.

From what I have read BEF sent 390,000 men and UK produced more than 1500 tanks / armored vehicles before 1940, I think with different guidelines I think they could have sent this big deployment. I imagine that in those times it was something unthinkable to do, but not impossible (maybe I'm wrong and it was completely impossible). However, it is realistic to unprotect your country to defend another, although the navy does protect it, would that be enough?

So it was possible, but is it not 100% realistic? I think it is the game that should limit this situation, it is not the players who have to decide what is right and what is not, because of things like that there is anger between players.

Either way it is a problem, we want a more playable and more fun game, the French All-in defense can be beaten but it will give victory to the Allies 95% of the games, and this is not fun.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

I'm not sure that screwing over the UK starting land forces is going to keep the balance for those of us who don't use the all-in tactic.

Don't worry, 100 strength to repair is nothing in terms of PP.

[MorningDew]

BEF size was around 4 Corps equivalent. I see 9 Corps above.

But agree perhaps it would have been possible by stripping the home land, however, that probably is not realistic. Therein might lie part of the problem.

[stjeand]

I don't think units should be stripped...but more need to be homeguard. That would solve the issue for the most part.

But need to validate to be sure.


And yes I have 9 corps...and there are 3 or 4 more not in France. Forget the exact number.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

I'm not sure that screwing over the UK starting land forces is going to keep the balance for those of us who don't use the all-in tactic.

Don't worry, 100 strength to repair is nothing in terms of PP.

Just over 3 weeks' worth of PPs

[ComadrejaKorp]

BEF size was around 4 Corps equivalent. I see 9 Corps above.

But agree perhaps it would have been possible by stripping the home land, however, that probably is not realistic. Therein might lie part of the problem.

Just that! What I was trying to say is that if from 1939 when the game begins, if the leaders had acted differently, many new scenarios would be possible a year later, I think that sometimes we are very strict with the game.

I love that the game is as historical as possible at the beginning, and as realistic as possible in the development of the game, and I know that you help to achieve it, but if there is no place to change anything, it would not be worth playing.

But I also want the game to be balanced and fun, and I think this is the real problem here.

[stjeand]

Thoughts...a few come to mind.

1) Lower French experience for Maginot Line troops OR make is so they have to stay there somehow. The French gov't insisted that they would be attacked there...and never left.
2) French never had any sort of tank corps. They had very good tanks at the time...but their tactic were abysmal. They spread the tanks out throughout the infantry divisions. So you could remove that unit, just like they do not have mech.
3) Somehow England must garrison their country with a good amount of troops and air. Perhaps all the southern cities require large corps or something like that. They clearly were worried early on about an invasion...NOW after Germany attack Russia that could be lifted a bit to say, small corps.


I do not really like to limit the UK...as they are to be around for the game, unlike the French. I would rather focus our efforts on them.

Then again Sillyflower does send the entire army and airforce to Africa...which is a HUGE pain.

[sillyflower]

I always leave UK well defended after my traumatic struggle in my 2nd game vs sveint in which he did a successful Sealion [:-]

Fall Weiss works well with a 'reasonable' BEF so I am against weakening the french in every game because the problem is only caused by an all-in BEF.

[ncc1701e]

Sorry Silly but you have raised a very valid point with the all-in strategy but you are against weakening the UK, you are against weakening the Canadian, you are against weakening the French.
So, what shall we do? Boosting the Germans? [;)]

I am quite sure the in-game mechanisms won't allow to do a limitation of 4-5 UK corps in France in 1940. But, this is what I like in the game, you can do a strategy not based on events.

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: stjeand

I would be happy to play someone that tries the rolling armor. I have tried that there is just does not seem to be enough hexes to do that in the front.
Maybe I am not playing well.


I guess we would need to test it. Maybe we just do not need a fix for it...Just play better.
I don't really use most of the UK starting units. I might use 1...but mostly just builds.

In the one I am playtesting I have...

UK 2 Armor / 2 Mech / 5 Inf
France 1 Armor and not sure...a lot of Inf.


Any screen shots? I want to see what you had set up...
How many trucks did you use? Honestly I stopped using them completely. Cost appears to be above the gain, at least for me but then maybe I am wrong as I went through 100 points in 3 turns. The return is just 2 more attacks per unit. Maybe that is good and what need to occur.

Not sure how you did not get the UK units to Africa though. As soon as a unit is worn...hit the rail lines to the south and transport out to Africa.

I will have to retest.

I wouldn't mind testing this as the German. While in my test game I took Paris, what I can't be sure of is whether the German suffered to much damage to be able to take on Russia. Also, whether they had the strength and time to take Egypt. The victory in France could easily be the place where the German Army is crippled. Might end up a short game.

Here is what my hot seat game looked like on May 10th. I think I moved over two more Br small Corps after this screen shot.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Sorry Silly but you have raised a very valid point with the all-in strategy but you are against weakening the UK, you are against weakening the Canadian, you are against weakening the French.
So, what shall we do? Boosting the Germans? [;)]

I am quite sure the in-game mechanisms won't allow to do a limitation of 4-5 UK corps in France in 1940. But, this is what I like in the game, you can do a strategy not based on events.

I am trying to help the axis out here by raising the issue [:)]

I am anti a tactic that can end the game in less than a year. That is nothing to do with there being a need to re-balance other matters. You may have a valid point about other allied:axis balance, but that has to be separate.

Clearly, if it is impossible to implement my proposal (and I know that Alvaro can enlighten us because he has the All-Seeing Eye on his roof), then we do need a different tool to solve to problem. Weakening the allies so that France will fall in 3 turns with my 5 xxx + HQ BEF isn't a good solution in my opinion.

I just don't have another trick up by me sleeve at the moment if there is no mechanism (perhaps supply if it can't be hard wired) to keep BEF to reasonable limits. Writing this, perhaps the UK army could be reduced at the start with a boost when France falls by manipulating the timing of the Home Guard units or something similar

[ago1000]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

What I am doing

Fixing the French Fleet support from port issue. They shouldnt be able to

Air units now will only intercept naval when set to naval mission, but still support land. It will be just like supply interdiction.

I reduced the starting UK forces back to historical now that the game has been flushed out. I had to add to their forces to prevent an easy German invasion. But since we improved invasion rules and added naval rules I can put them back to historical. They will lose about 100 starting strength but all of these are repairs not raw builds. So this should put even more pressure on the decision to go all out in France or not. I don't want players quitting in August 1940 because it is too hard. Not fair to anyone. Like every game I make your decisions are a balance of give and take with a zero sum outcome if your opponent plays optimally. In this case how fast do you want France to fall? The range should be June to August.

Disposable French Fleet - I am considering how to implement a morale adjustment for lost ships for countries you can negotiate a surrender with. This basically would translate into a smaller Vichy, earlier surrender, or possible capture of naval groups for the Axis. Still deciding.

Has a Beta been created for this? I'm running 1.00.1, steam update.

[stjeand]

I wouldn't mind testing this as the German. While in my test game I took Paris, what I can't be sure of is whether the German suffered to much damage to be able to take on Russia. Also, whether they had the strength and time to take Egypt. The victory in France could easily be the place where the German Army is crippled. Might end up a short game.

If the Germans did not lose any units then you should be good...

The issue is lost units.

In our testing 3 to 6 corps are lost...and usually 1 or 2 are armor. That ends the game.

[AlvaroSousa]

Right now I am reading these posts and waiting for a couple players to send feedback on their game. Then probably Monday I will put up the 1st Beta.

I am also finishing the Pacific Gold version this weekend.

[ComadrejaKorp]

After the tests carried out against Hadros, Stjeand and NCC I think the biggest problem as indicated by NCC and now Hadros is that the Corps and armored units break very easily. The casualties may be bearable for the Axis but the loss of units is irreplaceable.

Of the proposed solutions, the one I like the most is to delay Allies technology, this would force to invest in escorts without delay and would make the fall of France easier, the All-in strategy would be a suicide.

What happens when there is no all-in strategy is that the surplus troops are sent to the Middle East, this in part would also be solved.

IMHO a possible easy solution would be to not let the Allied troops upgrade until the fall of France. It's that simple, without making any more changes.

I'm also concerned about how easy it is for tanks and Corps to break now due to the latest change: ´´ Losses have also been mitigated by 10% in the latest patch. So 10% of all land combat losses are reverted to effectiveness losses.´´

[AlvaroSousa]

A shatter isn't a loss. It goes to the queue.

[stjeand]

I have never had a shatter go to my queue...
Just overrunning of the air units will go to the queue.
Shatters always destroy the unit...same with surrender...same with destroyed.

If they went to queue that would be interesting but...

Anyone else have that happen?
Did something happen that remove this?

[Nirosi]

I thought that, according to manual, shatter means that you get back ~10% (not that much) of shattered steps both PP and MP wise if it was due to overwhelming odds or 90% if due to retreat over 2 hexes? So basically you get a small or large rebate to rebuilt it.

[ComadrejaKorp]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

A shatter isn't a loss. It goes to the queue.

Sorry, I think you're confused (: