Next Patch

[balto]

This is based on hundreds of hours of both PBEM and against AI. Overall the game is kind of neat. But my bullets below prevent me from PBEMing ever again.

1) Restrict the Convoy of PP. Right now, Allies can ship any amount of PP at anytime to any country from any location. This is a deal breaker in PBEM. Until that is fixed, I will NEVER PBEM this again.

2) The Vichy Option has to go to Germany, or just not exist. Presently the question goes to the Allies who would actually be nuts not to reject Vichy. Right now, Allied players check to fight on and you deny Germany 50 DP and both USSR and USA PP go up, the French Navy can hang around for another 6-7 turns, and most of all, it takes at least 6-7 turns to get to all the French cities (which is 6-7 less turns you can turn on Russia). This causes the very difficult task of the Axis to become impossible.

3) The effect your raiders have on Convoys is not revealed. You only get effects if naval units clash with other Naval Units. If your raiders get to your opponents Convoys.., you have no idea what happened. Think about this, this is not good.

4) To a lesser extent, there is no penalty for taking Gibraltar. You just lose the door to the Med. But you will see the fall of Gibraltar coming, so just split the huge British Navy in half. Britain should have a significant and permanent PP reduction for losing Gibraltar.

5) To a lesser extent, Africa is useless for either side. No real PPs at any of the cities, so why commit any forces. If you are Axis and Allies take Africa.., so what. Ditto for Axis, if British, so what. The Africa cities should have some serious PPs or some sort of PP reward for expensing assets in that area.

As I said, pretty cool beer and pretzel game. Just needs some tweaks.

[cpdeyoung]

Like you, I really enjoy this game but I see some points I disagree with in your analysis, so please allow me to address them. I want to say first that I think contributing your thoughts is great and I want to respectfully add my views.

1) Restrict the Convoy of PP. Right now, Allies can ship any amount of PP at anytime to any country from any location. This is a deal breaker in PBEM. Until that is fixed, I will NEVER PBEM this again.

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.

As to convoys that are launched, the Axis player has the same remedy the actual Axis naval command did : They can intercept and destroy, or damage the convoys. A successful intercept destroys STP and PP, which is a very serious penalty. If a country has naval forces, and STP, and PP and wishes to ship them to another country this is how it is done. It happened in the war. Some nations are sea powers, some not. If you want to stop convoys, build ships.

By the way I do agree with those who want aircraft to be a part of naval interaction, including convoys, and I have suggested the nations which can trace a route (yet to be defined) to another country be allowed to ship PP over a land route. Neither of these rules are yet defined.

2) The Vichy Option has to go to Germany, or just not exist. Presently the question goes to the Allies who would actually be nuts not to reject Vichy. Right now, Allied players check to fight on and you deny Germany 50 DP and both USSR and USA PP go up, the French Navy can hang around for another 6-7 turns, and most of all, it takes at least 6-7 turns to get to all the French cities (which is 6-7 less turns you can turn on Russia). This causes the very difficult task of the Axis to become impossible.

I believe you actually only need to capture Paris, Metz and Marseille. By the time I am offered Vichy as the Axis I will have the first two, or very close. If my Italians are in the game I will be putting real pressure on Marseille, If not, the much weakened French, often reduced to 0-1 and 1-1, after Paris falls, are not going to stop my Panzers long. If the British are holding Marseille I get to kill British forces normally exempt from attack. The French are not supposed to surrender without a fight. The Axis must attack them. There are advantages to taking Vichy option as the Allies : The Axis cannot garrison the south as they would like to do, and, without Vichy, French North Africa and Syria/Lebanon become German on the fall of France, and a prepared Axis player can do interesting things with Tunis and Beirut.

3) The effect your raiders have on Convoys is not revealed. You only get effects if naval units clash with other Naval Units. If your raiders get to your opponents Convoys.., you have no idea what happened. Think about this, this is not good.

The "Raider Activity" report, from the report menu is a good place to look for this data. When it says the enemy lost 1 STP this is 1 PP transported by 1 STP. For info on your own convoys hover over the convoy report at the inter-turn phase.

4) To a lesser extent, there is no penalty for taking Gibraltar. You just lose the door to the Med. But you will see the fall of Gibraltar coming, so just split the huge British Navy in half. Britain should have a significant and permanent PP reduction for losing Gibraltar.

Losing Gibraltar is a disaster for the Allies! The Italian fleet can enter the Atlantic at will. The Royal Navy forces in the Med are trapped and the RN can be defeated in detail. Invasion of Great Britain becomes very feasible. Each "half" of the RN will be in jeopardy, convoys in serious trouble, transport dangerous, all in all a disaster.

5) To a lesser extent, Africa is useless for either side. No real PPs at any of the cities, so why commit any forces. If you are Axis and Allies take Africa.., so what. Ditto for Axis, if British, so what. The Africa cities should have some serious PPs or some sort of PP reward for expensing assets in that area.

If you don't want North Africa simply pull out. Many wonder why the Germans fought the campaign. Don't want to? : "Just say no!". The fact that Cairo is a British VP site gives me a pretty good reason to want to capture it as the Axis. As the Allies I like making the Axis garrison the "soft underbelly", so those North African ports and "air bases" look pretty good.

If you are watching the AAR Gary Gardner and I are running on our PBEM game, you will see that the Axis task can certainly be handled. I hope to whip Gary, but I am sure neither he nor many observers see his task as impossible. I am pleased to see all the interesting ideas generated in the forum recently, and hope you see these comments as only my opinion, everyone is rumored to have one!

Chuck

[balto]

1) So you agree with my #1.  YES, you do.
 
2) Huh.  Reread what I wrote and then compare that to what you wrote.  Just stop the Vichy thing, it is that simple.
 
3) That is excellent info.  I did not know about that.  I will play the AI and see how that works.  I was hoping there would be a window alert like Naval battles, but I will check that out when I play the AI after the next patch. 
 
4) Huh?  The British can crush the Italian Navy, even half of it.  By reading my post #5, it is nothing to give up Africa, just pull entire RN into Atlantic if you worried about the Italian Navy - which you should not be.   As I said, you have several turns to see if Gibraltar will fall, so there is no panic factor at all in this decision.  And if Italy wants to spend money on their Navy.., great news, that is less they can expend on Russia.  As far as Sea Lion, you gotta be joking.  You see how expensive Invasion points are?  All you need to do is keep British Ports garrisoned.  If the italians or germans spend any resources on Sea Lion, not only will they be easily crushed by home base British resources, that will be less they spent on Russia, and Russia is everything.
 
5) Are you stating that you think the enormous resources to keep Cairo's single VP is worth fighting for in the Med - you are joking, right?. Russia is everything.  As far as the soft underbelly, that is not valid concept in this game. To not invade from France from Britain is crazy even when the Axis knows you are coming (they must focus on Russia anyway).  You get transfers direct from US, free air cover from Britain, direct transfers from Britain, I could go on.   To come from the Mediterranean (in this game) makes zero sense.  Sure you get a one turn shock factor, but any competent player can whack a Med invasion because it takes two turns to get units in and air cover is limited from Africa.  Invade across channel from Britain or lose, another no brainer.

[gwgardner]

I agree with Balto's points IF one wants a historical recreation of the war. If one approaches the game as a 'what if' however, the quirks in the game system are acceptible.

Some of Balto's points, like the current uselessness of North Africa can be addressed with a map mod. Some others, like the uselessness of Gibraltar could be addressed by the addition of a air/naval component to the game.

Balto, don't give up on the PBEM. Just come to an agreement with your PBEM opponent on house rules.

An example: you could demand that your French opponent not set up defenses behind the Ardennes! Imagine my chagrin in my current PBEM, when I discovered the dastardly French had poured their entire resources into a wall of infantry across the entire Luxembourg and Belgian border.

[cpdeyoung]

House rule number 42.7 : Neutrality is to be respected.  Violation of a single neutral is an offense to humanity, violation of nearly every neutral on the continent is absurd.  Perhaps conversion of all AFVs to horse cavalry would be an appropriate punishment, oh yeah, you guys have to wear Pickelhauben again!

[doomtrader]

2, 3, 4 and 5 are going to be rewised and reworked.
 
And I think we can't do much with the convoys.

[balto]

#1 is key.  I am not a programmer, but does it really take that much to restrict major powers to the 50 PP of Lend Lease?  And if you use the house rules above.., well, USA should save all the PP with no Research.  Then when USA is at war, give 100% of PP to Britain.  No need to have two armies and no need to ship US forces over there.  Just have the US fleet watch the Murmansk convoy and North Atlantic routes.  If the US fleet suffers some casualties, well, lower how much PP you give to Britain so you can repair the fleet.
 
Your comments about 2,3,4, and 5 are great. How about 5 for 5? 

[doomtrader]

I'll ask could #1 be modded, but bare in mind that I prefer to polish winter for you.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: balto

This is based on hundreds of hours of both PBEM and against AI. Overall the game is kind of neat. But my bullets below prevent me from PBEMing ever again.

Balto,
I think that the primary underlying problem here is political, rather than strictly game mechanics. I've been re-reading Churchill's history (for the last three months! - and am still only as far as volume five) this winter, and while he certainly leaves a little to be desired as a purely military historian (you tank-pushers would be greatly disappointed) politically, he is superb. As a result, I now know a great deal about Lend - Lease, the Murmansk convoys, the Naval war, espescially the Battle of the Atlantic, the Great LST bottleneck, etc.

1) Restrict the Convoy of PP. Right now, Allies can ship any amount of PP at anytime to any country from any location. This is a deal breaker in PBEM. Until that is fixed, I will NEVER PBEM this again.

The restricting factor on Lend - Lease of course was political. As I will get into further in this response, if we had a more responsive political unrest system, it would be easy to balance the sending of PP with increased political unrest (Every increase in American aid to England cost Roosevelt politically. Even after the American entry into the war, there was strong opposition to sending American aid to Europe at the cost of delaying the war against Japan.) But the restricting factor on the sending of PP to the USSR was purely naval. Year after year, the Anglo/Americans found that they could only send four or five convoys because in good weather, the Luftwaffe simply made it too expensive to try to round the North Cape. We simply must find a way to fix the air/naval interaction problem. The next limiting factor was the availability of escort vessels and freighter capacity and that wasn't really from lack of resources as much as the TIME it took to build freighters and repair naval casualties. The present production system just makes it too easy to produce freighter capacity and naval units.

2) The Vichy Option has to go to Germany, or just not exist. Presently the question goes to the Allies who would actually be nuts not to reject Vichy. Right now, Allied players check to fight on and you deny Germany 50 DP and both USSR and USA PP go up, the French Navy can hang around for another 6-7 turns, and most of all, it takes at least 6-7 turns to get to all the French cities (which is 6-7 less turns you can turn on Russia). This causes the very difficult task of the Axis to become impossible.

I totally agree with you, and I'm hoping that Doom's promise to revamp the house rules will handle a lot of these problems. There is no question that the choice of whether or not to allow Vichy should belong to the Axis. Churchill's volume on the Fall of France is particularly enlightening. As the end approached for French will to resist Hitler, the English did everything imaginable to keep them in the war, including proposing that France and Great Britain form a single , united country, with dual citizenship, etc. There was no question the France could easily have stayed in the war as many of the other conquered European countries did (Norway, Holland, Greece and Poland, just as examples) and fought on from its colonial Empire in North Africa and the Middle East. But, as the old joke about "How many Frenchmen do you have to have to defend Paris? No one knows, its never been tried," implies, the will simply wasn't there. Because of current propaganda, many people today don't realize how unpopular the DeGaulist movement was in France right up to D-Day. The French Army and Navy FOUGHT, and fought FEERCLY, even against overwhelming Allied superiority, to stay out of the war after the fall of France. (Of course, as another old joke says, "going to war without the support of the French is like going hunting without your accordion," so it didn't really matter very much) The question again comes down to political unrest. The people of France, or perhaps more accurately, their political leaders, simply were not going to fight another day. And that's what Churchill found in Briare. No matter what he and Prime Minister Paul Reynaud suggested, the French Army commanders and other French cabinet members simply refused to consider further resistance and Reynaud was forced to step down in favor of Marschall Petain.

3) The effect your raiders have on Convoys is not revealed. You only get effects if naval units clash with other Naval Units. If your raiders get to your opponents Convoys.., you have no idea what happened. Think about this, this is not good.

Agree. This could be handled as part of a general fix of the naval rules, but I fear that this is going to fall under "not in the developers vision." Oh well.

4) To a lesser extent, there is no penalty for taking Gibraltar. You just lose the door to the Med. But you will see the fall of Gibraltar coming, so just split the huge British Navy in half. Britain should have a significant and permanent PP reduction for losing Gibraltar.

Again, this is a problem that really has to do with political unrest. The fall of Gibraltar would have resulted in military results and (perhaps more importantly) political results. One of the problems that I have with the current game is the lack of an "around the Cape" option for the Allies. The vast majority of English troops and supplies were sent to the Middle East via South Africa and the Suez Canal, NOT through the Med. Because of Axis air superiority in the Med, Churchill took horrible risks throughout 1940 - 1941 to send the two "Tiger" convoys to Egypt, and to re-supply Malta with troops and aircraft. This means that the loss of Gibraltar would actually have less effect militarily then the game shows, because most of the British supply effort didn't pass through there. But what would have been important (perhaps decisive) would have been the political effect of the loss of Gibraltar. Gibraltar was given to England by Spain in 1713 and has been the primary British overseas base ever since. I've been trying to think of an analogous loss that could have been suffered by the United States, and even the loss of Hawaii wouldn't have produced as severe a political blow to an American government as the loss of Gib would have been to the British. Again, if Political Unrest led to INTERNAL coups against belligerent powers resulting in their being replaced with "peace at any price" governments, this problem would be handled.

5) To a lesser extent, Africa is useless for either side. No real PPs at any of the cities, so why commit any forces. If you are Axis and Allies take Africa.., so what. Ditto for Axis, if British, so what. The Africa cities should have some serious PPs or some sort of PP reward for expensing assets in that area.


The problem here is a combination of all of the above problems, and I'd like to point out to Doomtrader, et al, that this is what happens when you try to paper over a SYSTEMS problem. What made Africa valuable to both sides was primarily POLITICAL. With the exception of the military value of the Suez Canal (which is ignored in the game) and the ability to base aircraft which absolutely controled naval activity (and which is ignored in the game), the value of North Africa to both sides was POLITICAL (and this is esentially meaningless in the game. The result? Africa is pointless, just as Norway is pointless!) The loss of Egypt and the Canal in 1941 would almost certainly have resulted in Churchill's government going down in a vote of no confidence. Italy's desire for a "Roman Empire" in North Africa was the "tar baby" that eventually cost it the war.

As I said, pretty cool beer and pretzel game. Just needs some tweaks.

Well, I've screwed this up fairly well -- I still cant figure out how to quote selectively. All in all, I agree with Balto. It is a cool beer and pretzels game. I'd just like it to be an ACURATE beer and pretzels game.

[James Ward]

One way to reduce the amount of PP transfer would be to reduce the number of transport point at start. This would certainly make for a more difficult choice fo rthe USA, spend a lot of production on shipping just to transfer PP or spend it on research. Perhaps a limit could be set on the total amount allowed to be transferred by a country per turn. Also only the US should be allowed to send aid.

[Michael the Pole]

Unfortunately, Great Britain contributed, in total, aprox 1/3 of the economic value transfered to the USSR by the Arctic Convoys. Of course they were recieving aid from the U. S. at the same time, so its somewhat difficult to decide what was "blue" resources and what was "green."
As to puting an arbitrary limit on PP transfers, IMHO that would just be another "house rule." I'd much rather fix the system, if possible and let the game dictate results.[:'(]
Reducing the amount of transport points at start is certainly an option. One of the things I didnt touch on, above, was the "LST bottleneck." This lack of large beach capable transports was the SINGLE limiting factor for ALL the Anglo-American campaigns during 1943-44. But the problem wasn't using them for actual beach assaults -- rather they were widely used for maintaining supply after combat landings.

[cpdeyoung]

[font=arial]"The Arsenal of Democracy"[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]What "problem" with shipping are we addressing?  Surely the way to address any issue is to state it first :[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]

Right now, Allies can ship any amount of PP at anytime to any country from any location.

[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]No, right now, Great Britain can ship PP varying from 14.7 (1939) to 80-89 (1941-1942).  These are maximum amounts, based on normal British production.  This is not "any amount", and I am pretty sure the British might want to build a unit or two, and a ship or two, or maybe do a little research.  France also, while she exists might want to build a unit or two, but if she shipped her maximum would be a very finite amount.  Somehow I doubt that an active Axis player is going to let France ship an awfully lot of production points, and, if the player commanding France wants to do so why should he be restrained by a "rule"?  Cannot the Axis player find a solution to the awesome power of the French state?[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]The USA does have a lot of PP and perhaps a Allied player wants to stay at peace and rely on Lend Lease.  This is covered by the rules, and by house rule I encourage the following of the 50PP limit for each receipient, until the USA becomes a beligerent.  if this limit were made a hard and fast rule it would not change my play.  If after beligerency the Allied player want to ship hundreds of PP rather than troops to Great Britain I would allow it, but I would support a limit on the amount that could go to the Soviets. I would wish this restriction to be per convoy, thus, if the Americans could run two convoys, one to Murmansk, and one to the Black Sea the restriction would apply to each convoy.  The Axis should be encourged to contest such convoys as they did in actual fact, but while we are working through issues such as Air/Naval interaction I would support a well thought out limit. [/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]If a player offers me a game and wants to play the Axis with a stronger navy, and is willing to give up some of the panzers, and Luftwaffe, and the infantry they built from 1920 - 1939 then we can mod the PP and OOB to give them a navy.  As it is in the current OOB the Axis do not have control of the seas.  Take away the seapower of the Allies and see how many players want to play the Allies?[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]There is a problem which needs to be addressed here however, and that is the lack of a "Battle of the Atlantic".  The very important submarine war is lacking, but I am sure the building of this model will be a very big effort. Can we ask the developers to rebuild this whole game?  Sure, but we had better give them plenty of time, and dare I say it, money.  This is not WITP, but a very young game with a small community of, very demanding, players.[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
La Troisième République, and its successor state
[font=arial][/font] 

The Vichy Option has to go to Germany, or just not exist.

 
The Vichy option is in the game because it happened.  I do not mind if you put in a event which allows the Axis player to offer an armstice, Vichy or not, and then the French player can accept or not.  This seems fair and accurate.  What I do object to is any attempt to make France fall if Paris is taken.  The game has a very clear set of rules for when a country is conquered.  There is no reason to make a "special" exception for France.  If the Axis wants to take France the can take the three cities that have VP.  This is the rule.  It is how the game works.  Too tough to take France the way the game is designed, then play the Allies.
 
The "Rock", and the "wire"
 
[font=verdana]

[font=verdana]there is no penalty for taking Gibraltar[/font]

[/font]
[font=verdana]

[font=verdana]Africa is useless for either side[/font]

[/font]
[font=verdana][/font] 
[font=verdana]I will always try and hold Gibraltar and North Africa with the Allies.  You don't care to do so.  Where is the problem which need to be addressed?[/font]
[font=verdana][/font] 
[font=verdana]Once again I must ask : Is there a perceived problem with the Allies being too strong?[/font]
[font=verdana][/font] 
[font=verdana]Chuck[/font]

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Unfortunately, Great Britain contributed, in total, aprox 1/3 of the economic value transfered to the USSR by the Arctic Convoys. Of course they were recieving aid from the U. S. at the same time, so its somewhat difficult to decide what was "blue" resources and what was "green."
As to puting an arbitrary limit on PP transfers, IMHO that would just be another "house rule." I'd much rather fix the system, if possible and let the game dictate results.[:'(]

Putting a limit on the amount a nation could ship per turn would prevent the Allies from simply using the USA as a supply depot. Making the USA the only nation that can transfer just simplifies the process even though many countries contributed. What I think is wrong is for Allied minors ship PP's to other nations if they enter the war. I mean you could make a case for the Axis minors sending resources to Germany but I don't think this is possible in the game (as they have no ports to ship from) yet if Turkey enters you can send aid to the USA as soon as you build a transport which the USA can pay for by shipping a few PP's to you

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Unfortunately, Great Britain contributed, in total, aprox 1/3 of the economic value transfered to the USSR by the Arctic Convoys. Of course they were recieving aid from the U. S. at the same time, so its somewhat difficult to decide what was "blue" resources and what was "green."
As to puting an arbitrary limit on PP transfers, IMHO that would just be another "house rule." I'd much rather fix the system, if possible and let the game dictate results.[:'(]

Putting a limit on the amount a nation could ship per turn would prevent the Allies from simply using the USA as a supply depot. Making the USA the only nation that can transfer just simplifies the process even though many countries contributed. What I think is wrong is for Allied minors ship PP's to other nations if they enter the war. I mean you could make a case for the Axis minors sending resources to Germany but I don't think this is possible in the game (as they have no ports to ship from) yet if Turkey enters you can send aid to the USA as soon as you build a transport which the USA can pay for by shipping a few PP's to you

I think that all of this just proves my point -- we could go on for ever trying to legislate every possible permutation of who can ship PP to whom. If we just imposed a political cost, perhaps with some sort of geometric progression, you could do whatever you thought was necessary but there would still be realistic limits.

[balto]

[font="times new roman"]Chuck, let me get this straight.  I am quoting your confusing post above.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]USA can ship 50PP to both Britain and USSR when Lend Lease is enacted.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]USA can ship any amount to neutrals.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]When USA is at war - then unlimited to Britain and two convoys of 50PP to Russia.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Britain can ship 50PP whenever they want to Russia?[/font]
[font="times new roman"]France can ship 50PP whenever they want to Russia?[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]And you think the Vichy option is not a big deal.  If I am Allies, I refuse Vichy.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]With that said, I challenge you and anyone on the planet earth to this game with me as Allies and the above as the house rules.  [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]I am not the greatest player, but with your rules – I cannot be defeated by anyone.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]I am not going to do an AAR, but I have no problem giving occasional narrative updates about me kicking your butt.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]You want to walk the way you talk?  I am here.  Also if anybody else considers Chuck’s statements to be valid and wants to use the above Chuck House Rules.., please, bring it on.  [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]The bottom line is - go to the top of this post.  These are changes that need to be made and the developer acknowledges them (4 out of 5, just like Dentyne gum).[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

[cpdeyoung]

USA can ship 50PP to both Britain and USSR when Lend Lease is enacted.

Yes, per the event which allows this, and it is, of course something which did occur.

USA can ship any amount to neutrals.

The USA cannot ship to the Soviet Union except as per lend lease when the USSR and USA are both neutral.

When USA is at war - then unlimited to Britain and two convoys of 50PP to Russia.

The shipments to the Soviet Union are a house rule I proposed, but by current rules they could ship more. Your are aware that any shipments of PP are limited to the STP, which is limited, and, of course to the effects of Axis interception. The USA can ship PP to the British as per lend lease until a beligerent, then they can ship subject to the limits of STP, which are used to supply troops across the world too. STP is a limiting factor, and they can be destroyed by an active naval campaign by the Axis.

Britain can ship 50PP whenever they want to Russia?

Britain can ship whatever PP they have. It takes quite a while for Great Britain to have 50PP period. They start with 14.7PP per turn. If they have PP after rebuilding ships, building amphib points, rebuilding STP, doing research, building units to guard the Isles, North Africa, Gibraltar, Malta, etc., then sure, they can call on their mariners to push a convoy through the Axis naval forces. If this qualifys as "whenever they want" to you, well then I guess they can. After all : they did.

France can ship 50PP whenever they want to Russia?

Subject to the constraints on STP the French can ship 50PP if they have it. The French have demands which often cause them to have to expend PP on items other than their eastern neighbors.

And you think the Vichy option is not a big deal. If I am Allies, I refuse Vichy.

If I am the Allies I consider if it is my in best interest to accept the armistice, or fight on, then choose.

I will decline your offer of a game. Thank you anyway, but I will point out that the current WW2:RtV rules are less restrictive than the "house rules" and people do seem to play the game.

Hope this is all understandable.

Chuck

[balto]

Let me help shorten and clarify the previous post.  Herei it is re-worded: 

"Yes, those are my house rules, and "No" there is no way I am challenging you because you are correct, the Allies cannot lose with my house rules, that is why I always play as the Allies.  But if 4 of the 5 changes you put at the beginning of your post were used, then the game would be signifcantly more balanced.

[Uxbridge]

This is just a short post to tell how we solved some of the problems above; I do not participate in the discussion:

USA starts with a lot of development pre-designed and a negative PP value of -1350. This way it will take them a while before any LL to UK or others can begin. It solves the French problem!

We have a Home Rule that Majors may give Minors part of their PP. You simply press F1, decrease the level of the giving nation and increase the level of the recieving. These PP is to be used for development only in our game, but in PBEM players can decide these things for themselves.

[balto]

That would 100% solve the problem.  That is so simple, it is ingenius!!!!  If you combine that with allowing the Germans to decide about Vichy (of course Germans would accept Vichy) and you would have an outstanding play balance.   This should be the house rule until the patch catches up. 

[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?