ww2wargame.com
WWII: Struggle for Europe____WWII: Struggle for Asia => Game Design => Topic started by: Yoper on December 12, 2006, 03:47:20 PM
-
We have discussed the topic of minor countries and their supply situation now for a while.
The fact that a defending force in a country like Greece can be put out of supply even though they are defending in their own country seems a bit screwy.
And in the game we are presently playing, I made a rather daring attempt (that failed miserably!) to put all of Spain out of supply by trying to take the Pyrennes and also to control the applicable sea zones.
The latter example seemed even more far fetched since we are talking about a very large country that should have more than enough indigenous industry and resources that it wouldn't be hindered by such a problem. Or at least not for certain length of time based on the stockpiling certain necessities.
While I can understand the choices made concerning smaller minors like Yugoslavia and Greece when it comes to supply (and when the seasonal turn length is taken into account) but larger neutrals/minor countries like Spain, Turkey, and Sweden should have a space (their capital) that gives them a supply source.
Food for thought.
Craig
-
Once we toyed with the idea that minors are always in supply in their home country - which worked ok - but it ultimately got rejected. When you think about the effects of being unsupplied - essentially a -1 combat modifier - one could interpret the rule a little more broadly I think:
If your country was completely besieged and isolated by the enemy - not only would it be dificult to keep your forces going with ammo, food and fuel, but the morale implications of being in that situation should not be underestimated either. So, to some degree, at least in my head, the out-of supply situation has impacted the population and the armies morale to fight as well as their ability to fight. When you consider the poor performace of just about every minor's ability in the war to inflict significant casualties on the invader (with the exception of maybe Finland) I think the -1 modifier can be justified for isolated minors too help that trend along. Even Spain - if the British managed to cut it off from the rest of the Axis, might not perform that well (they may not have performed that well anyway) - but Franco would have a really hard time if the Allies were able to isolate him from the rest of the Axis - might even be facing a coup or something - so he might have bigger fish to fry than launching an offensive somewhere - if you get what I mean.
That being said, we could introduce rules for minors being able to supply themsleves independently if folks are not happy with the approach here. . . :-\
-
I understand the basic effects that are generated by the rules as they stand.
As other have suggested, the use of a d12 system would allow you to differentiate between major power units and minor units.
I do agree that the the rules as they stand do kind of simulate the effect of inferior equipment, etc. that a minor would have.
Craig
-
Sorry to mix explanations - my point was not so much the inferior quality - it is the effect of being isolated and that impact on national and military morale IMHO.
-
Oh, I got what you were driving at.
I just was also pointing out another part of what you could be simulating in game.
Craig
-
We have discussed the topic of minor countries and their supply situation now for a while.
The fact that a defending force in a country like Greece can be put out of supply even though they are defending in their own country seems a bit screwy.
This is something I hadn't thought about, but it came up in our last game due to an offhand comment by one of my friends.
I think that minors should be considered in supply on the first turn they are attacked by the Axis. My reasoning is that they will otherwise be too easy to take out. In our games Poland has yet to even come close to holding out; giving them a -1 just adds insult to injury. If using the optional rules we’ve discussed that allow aircraft to block supply into an unoccupied sea zone that makes it very easy for Germany to place Denmark and Netherlands out of supply on the first turn, making them very easy pickings on turn 2.
Starting with the next turn (if they survive), I think the regular supply rules should apply. The argument could be made that a minor country would have enough supplies to fight for a few weeks; after that, they would need outside intervention in order to continue the fight.
Another approach would be to treat Madrid and Istanbul as a “flag” territory for purposes of supply. Since they are allowed a minimal build capability (1 INF per turn), this makes a certain amount of sense. Allowing all territories with that 1 INF build capability to act as a supply point would make it a little more difficult to place Britain’s Pacific territories out of supply as well.
Another way to address this would be to do what has been done in other games (notably War in Flames) and give the Axis a +1 to their die rolls on the first round of every combat on the turn they declare war against each country, similar to what’s done with Japan. Everything I’ve read indicates that supply wasn’t the biggest problem facing nations hit by the blitzkrieg – it was that they were so quickly overwhelmed, which points more to the extensive training/planning by the Axis than to supply problems by the invaded countries, and a +1 to the die roll on the first round better simulates that. That would probably require some adjustment of the initial forces of the minor nations though.
-
This will be addressed in the next version of the rules.
:)
John
-
I think it might be easier to just say that minors are always in supply in their own country?
-
I think it might be easier to just say that minors are always in supply in their own country?
Ah, it's nice to be un-banned... ;D
I personally like this - it's the simple way to handle it.
-
I think it might be easier to just say that minors are always in supply in their own country?
Ah, it's nice to be un-banned... ;D
I second that emotion! :-*
Craig
-
I think it might be easier to just say that minors are always in supply in their own country?
Ah, it's nice to be un-banned... ;D
I second that emotion! :-*
Craig
Oh? Did you get banned too?
I admire your confidence in your smack talk by the way. I gave that up a long time ago. All too often after I talked smack the dice seemed to conspire against me to make sure I remained properly humble. ;D
-
We deserve the smack talk. Believe me!
John
-
I talk all this smack because I know the real source of my power- my teammates!
Eric is one smart son-of-a-bitch and Dan is real machine when playing the USSR.
They just let me come along for the ride.
If you take a close look at both of the match ups between the Bostonians and us, you will see that the power that I played in both games is the one that was least effective.
I was way behind the power curve against the Japanese in first game as the US. The best thing I did in that game was to send a lot of material to Eric's UK so as to smash the Germans.
Then in the Origins game, I was the "Churchill" that allowed the invasion of the UK Home Isles. The only thing that saved my bacon was the fact that the Battle for the Atlantic had gone my way right from the start along with Cairo never really being threatened by the Italians.
Hell, the European Axis threw me a bone by trying to take Turkey!
I know my place. I am that annoying lap dog that barks all he wants because he has a Rottweiler and a Pit Bull backing him up. ;)
Craig
-
I have been humbled by the Detroit team - but I am pitting John up against Dan and Eric next time - he is our New England Pit Bull ;D
-
Well, we had another interesting game last night. I was the Axis, Peter and Jason were the Allies.
The game started rather ominously for the Axis, losing a total of 9 infantry on the first turn’s attacks. The next turn I redeployed, and on turn three I took out Belgium. Up to this point everything was going fairly normal; unfortunately for me, things started to get weird from here.
In Jason’s redeployments for the Soviets in Winter 1939-40, he left only two units on the Turkish border. Per the rules, we rolled, and Turkey entered the Axis. Great, you think.
Actually, not so much. It set into motion the events that virtually guarantee that I will lose in the next turn or two when we resume play next week.
Because I had not yet taken out France, Turkey was immediately out of supply. England immediately pounced on them with the troops they had deployed to North Africa, and deployed most of their navy to the Med, daring the Italians to declare war. I took France out on the Summer 1940 turn, and pulled back in Turkey to Istanbul, and England took the remainder of Turkey.
Hungary, Romania, Finland, and Bulgaria came into the Axis at the end of Fall 1940 (the turn after the fall of France), but since supply determination comes after “Check for Axis Minor Allies” the Turkish troops were still out of supply. Britain built a level three airbase in Turkey, and took Istanbul. I retreated 2 surviving infantry and 2 artillery into Bulgaria.
I noticed that Peter was sending almost everything he had as Britain down there to threaten me from the south. As all of this was unfolding I started to build some transports. In winter 1940-41, I made an amphibious assault into London, and took it without taking a single casualty. As a result, Sweden rolled into the Axis.
The problem here is that with Turkey’s early entry, the Soviets hit Tension Level one. On the turn I took London, he also placed his first medium armor and fighter, so he drew nine cards that turn (first medium armor, first fighter, normal card draw for each turn, card draw for border requirements, Sweden joining Axis, Germany taking London). Spring of 1941 he was able to declare war on Germany.
Things went downhill pretty fast after that. As things stand right now (I think we’re going into the Allied half of the Summer 1941 turn), Germany has taken all of England. Russia is on the border of Germany and most likely will be in Germany at the end of his turn. England still has quite a bit in the Med directly threatening Turkey, so I have to keep some stuff there to protect the southern flank. I think Germany will be out by the end of the year.
I’m not complaining about losing. The biggest reason I’m losing is because of my invasion of England, which I know better than to do (though I do want it noted for the record that I did COMPLETELY conquer the British Isles…).
The issue I have here is the situation with Turkey. What should be a positive thing (Turkey joining the Axis) rapidly became an albatross around my neck, as the Turks basically became cannon fodder for the British; on top of that I had to commit forces to attacking the British there to protect my southern flank. After seeing all of this, Jason said something to the effect that because Turkey is out of supply if they come into the Axis before France falls that he thinks he will start attacking Turkey as the Soviets every game so as to eliminate them as a threat. This won’t be all that difficult, since with Turkey being out of supply they won’t be able to stand up to the Soviets more than a turn or two.
I think the issue of minor countries and supply needs to be revisited. John commented in September that this would be addressed in the next rules update – but that was almost 9 months ago. Is there any progress on this – or was he referring to the next version of the game?
I’m not sure what the answer to this is. While I like the idea of saying a minor country is in supply within its own territory, this does directly contradict the supply rules. This won’t normally be a problem since minor countries that are attacked generally end up being taken out the same turn they’re attacked (before they would check for supply). For Turkey, I would suggest perhaps saying that they could trace supply through Bulgaria/Romania/Hungary before those countries join the Axis, since those countries were obviously pro-Axis before they officially joined. A bit of a rules fudge, but one that’s easier to implement than making wholesale changes to how supply works.
As to the Soviets attacking Turkey right from the get-go – maybe this should be a negative card draw for the Soviets and/or the US.
Also, last night’s game generated a few rules questions (as usual).
Since minor countries have to trace supply to the Western Allies to be in supply, does this mean that the Polish forces in Eastern Poland would be out of supply in the Allied half of the first turn?
As Germany, I completely surrounded England so that England had no connection to the rest of their empire. If England can’t re-establish supply would this mean that they could only build in the home isles whatever points they still hold there and the remainder would have to be built in Canada?
When Turkey became England’s punching bag, Peter used the French infantry in Syria as part of his attacking force. When France fell, this infantry was in Turkey. We removed this infantry from the board, and since there was a British infantry in Syria we said that this territory was not Vichy, but became British. Was this correct?
Your thoughts, comments, ideas, threats, etc. are welcome,
Bob
-
Wow. . . :o I wish I could have watched that game unfold - it sounds like a roller-coaster!
You desrverve a much longer reply, but I think you have driven the point home that we should allow minors to be in supply in their own country - I think that must be a rules change and I would suggest you guys play with it going forward.
I need to run this morning, but I'll get back on the other key questions.
Thanks, Bob
Mark
-
Wow. . . :o I wish I could have watched that game unfold - it sounds like a roller-coaster!
You desrverve a much longer reply, but I think you have driven the point home that we should allow minors to be in supply in their own country - I think that must be a rules change and I would suggest you guys play with it going forward.
I need to run this morning, but I'll get back on the other key questions.
Thanks, Bob
Mark
It was definitely one of our weirder games – and considering some of our history, that’s saying a lot. Be careful what you wish for – if we get to come to Origins you may get to experience some of the weirdness first-hand.
Peter was over again last night helping me remodel my bathroom – OK, actually I’m helping him remodel my bathroom – and when we wrapped up for the night we sat in the living room and chatted for awhile, and as always, the talk turned to gaming. He was discussing the predicament that the UK is in having lost the British Isles, and said that in addition to the loss of income from there I could keep hitting his convoys for additional damage. When he said that, it hit me – why should I be able to continue hitting the convoy zones if the Axis conquer the British Isles? I can see maybe being able to attack the western-most one, since some things from Africa or the Indian Ocean might go through the western Atlantic on the way to Canada, but a lot of stuff would go via the Pacific; certainly there wouldn’t be anything going through the eastern zones once England’s gone. I think that in the event Britain loses the Isles the two eastern-most convoy zones should no longer be able to be attacked (and maybe say that the sea zone on the coast of Eastern Canada becomes a convoy zone).
I’m not sure how critical an issue this really is, since I don’t think England is likely to be taken all that often, if for no other reason than if you do it early in the war it means a very quick entry into the war for the Soviets if using the optional rules; after at war with Russia I don’t think Germany will have much of a chance of pulling it off. Still, the unexpected can happen, as our group seems to demonstrate on a fairly regular basis.
The one thing that bugs me is that if Turkey had been considered in supply, Russia would have had to immediately fort up to protect their southern flank – maybe enough to allow me to get away with my English adventure. Maybe not though – the optional rules are such that you just can’t really try Sea Lion with much hope.
-
In Jason’s redeployments for the Soviets in Winter 1939-40, he left only two units on the Turkish border. Per the rules, we rolled, and Turkey entered the Axis. Great, you think.
I commented about this statement to my Detroit boys on Friday night and Dan remarked on it by questioning whether you could even move away from Turkey at all.
I pulled out the appropriate parts of the rules concerning this below. The first bullet states a requirement that they must stay. Then the second bullet gives circumstances that allow for the USSR player to not follow that first requirement.
These two statements should be rewritten to reflect the ability for the USSR player to choose not to have to maintain the garrison.
• All Soviet units that start the game adjacent to Turkey and or Persia must remain adjacent to Turkey/Persia until the Soviet Union is at war with Turkey (though the units are free to move to any territory that is adjacent to Turkey or Persia). This garrison is reduced to 4 units (of any type) on the Soviet Fall 1941 turn
• If the Soviet Union does not have 4 ground units adjacent to Turkey at the end of any Soviet turn, roll a die, and on a 1-3, Turkey joins the Axis immediately.
This third bullet is okay since it doesn't have the caveat that Turkish border requirement has. There is no penalty for nor anyway in which the USSR player can reduce the garrison voluntarily.
• All Soviet units that start the game adjacent to Manchuria must remain adjacent to Manchuria until the Soviet Union is at war with Japan (though the units are free to move to any territory that is adjacent to Manchuria). This garrison is reduced to 5 units (of any type) on the Soviet Fall 1941. turn
I would also say to you Bobsalt that our group quickly came up with a graduated system of entry for the "major" minors of Turkey and Spain. The base game system of them coming in on the rolls for the triggers made them too gamebreaking in our opinion.
Spanish and Turkish War Reluctance
Axis minors Turkey and Spain do not immediately join the Axis upon successfully rolling a trigger entry for them. Instead, it takes two successful trigger rolls to bring Spain or Turkey into the war.
On the first successful trigger roll, Spain or Turkey become “pro-Axis” neutrals and contribute half of their production points to Germany rounded up (like Sweden) every turn. Upon the second successful trigger roll, Spain or Turkey join the Axis as a regular Axis minor ally as discussed above.
Craig
-
I commented about this statement to my Detroit boys on Friday night and Dan remarked on it by questioning whether you could even move away from Turkey at all.
I pulled out the appropriate parts of the rules concerning this below. The first bullet states a requirement that they must stay. Then the second bullet gives circumstances that allow for the USSR player to not follow that first requirement.
These two statements should be rewritten to reflect the ability for the USSR player to choose not to have to maintain the garrison.
I don’t see this the same way as you do. The first point states a requirement; the second gives what the penalty will be if that requirement is not met. You could make the argument that this isn’t well-written, but I think it’s written in the usual format of wargame rules; after all, if you were absolutely prohibited from moving troops away from the border why have a penalty for not having a garrison in the first place in the very next paragraph?
I would also say to you Bobsalt that our group quickly came up with a graduated system of entry for the "major" minors of Turkey and Spain. The base game system of them coming in on the rolls for the triggers made them too gamebreaking in our opinion.
Spanish and Turkish War Reluctance
Axis minors Turkey and Spain do not immediately join the Axis upon successfully rolling a trigger entry for them. Instead, it takes two successful trigger rolls to bring Spain or Turkey into the war.
On the first successful trigger roll, Spain or Turkey become “pro-Axis” neutrals and contribute half of their production points to Germany rounded up (like Sweden) every turn. Upon the second successful trigger roll, Spain or Turkey join the Axis as a regular Axis minor ally as discussed above.
Yes, we’ve seen this rule suggestion and rejected it out of hand. Half of the fun for us is when unusual things happen in the game. The game would become dull if every game played out the same. Our view is that anything (such as the possibility of Spain/Turkey) that creates different situations helps liven up the game.
After talking about it last night we’re probably going to go with a rule that Spain and Turkey are always in supply in their own country until they are cut out of supply to the rest of the Axis by Allied moves – no more Turkey being out of supply immediately. We’ll probably rule that Madrid and Istanbul are flag territories for purposes of supply.
-
I commented about this statement to my Detroit boys on Friday night and Dan remarked on it by questioning whether you could even move away from Turkey at all.
I pulled out the appropriate parts of the rules concerning this below. The first bullet states a requirement that they must stay. Then the second bullet gives circumstances that allow for the USSR player to not follow that first requirement.
These two statements should be rewritten to reflect the ability for the USSR player to choose not to have to maintain the garrison.
I don’t see this the same way as you do. The first point states a requirement; the second gives what the penalty will be if that requirement is not met. You could make the argument that this isn’t well-written, but I think it’s written in the usual format of wargame rules; after all, if you were absolutely prohibited from moving troops away from the border why have a penalty for not having a garrison in the first place in the very next paragraph?
I would say to you that the first bullet of the Turkey garrison and the bullet concerning SFE are written the same. As such, they set forth the idea that you must maintain a specific garrison amount at specific times.
Now if we go by your thinking, that the USSR doesn't have to keep a specific amount of a garrison in these places, then does that means that there isn't any penalty for the USSR if they pull back from Manchuria?
All I am saying is, if you are going to have a second bullet that lays out what the consequences are for not maintaining the garrison, then don't use the word "must" in the first bullet.
One shouldn't state things in absolutes and then turn right around and give exceptions to those absolutes. That is why I thing that the first bullet of the Turkey garrison should be rewritten.
Craig
-
Hi, what about the case if the units are destroyed in combat?
DD
-
I think you need to not just read each bullet point, but also look at them as a whole and determine what the intent is of these rules. The point related to Manchuria states that Russia can’t move units, and subsequently lists no penalty for not doing so; ergo, the intent is that they can’t move these units – period. With Turkey, one of the points says pretty much the same thing – but in the next point lists a penalty if you don’t comply; therefore, the intent appears to be that you can move them (although at high risk). I believe this point is also there in the event that Germany is able to eliminate the garrison units through combat, which, according to this rule would generate a die roll.
Of course we can always appeal to a higher power… ;)
Mark, what is the official ruling on this?
-
After reading the posts in this thread and giving it some thought, I think this is the route we’re going to go in the future regarding the points I brought up.
Minor countries will be considered to be in supply until conquered as long as their units are within their own border. Subsequent liberation will require that they be in supply per the normal supply rules.
For Spain and Turkey, the two territories that allow an infantry build for them (Madrid and Ankara, respectfully) will be considered a supply point for the entire country. Any units within the national border of these two nations will be considered to be in supply as long as they can trace supply to this supply point (or normally, of course).
If Russia declares war on Turkey prior to Turkey joining the Axis, the following will apply to US and Soviet Event-driven Entry:
Declaration of war on Turkey – US and USSR each discard two cards.
Russia occupies Ankara – US discards one card.
Russia occupies Istanbul or any territory bordering the Mediterranean – US discards two cards AND may not lend lease to USSR for the remainder of the game.
If any of these events occur and the US or USSR do not have enough cards to satisfy the discard requirement, these cards will be deducted from subsequent turns until the required card discards have been satisfied. Example – USSR declares war on Turkey on turn 2, and makes a successful amphibious invasion of Ankara. The US is holding two cards. Both will be discarded due to the declaration of war, and the US will draw one less card the next turn than would be normal due to the Soviets taking Ankara.
RATIONALE
My rationale here is fairly straight-forward. Holding to the regular supply rules lends itself too easily to the opportunity for abuse, as we’ve seen. It can be argued that although a minor country couldn’t become an offensive juggernaut, they could produce enough bullets, artillery shells, food, etc. to keep their armies supplied (though in most cases it isn’t going to make any real difference) to be able to defend themselves.
In the case of Spain and Turkey, they were both large industrialized countries at the outbreak of WWII. Though certainly not at the level of the major combatants, again, they could keep forces supplied with bullets, shells, bombs, food, etc.
Either way, I don’t see this as game-breaking, since these rules would be largely defensive in nature; if units move outside of the respective national border, they have to trace supply normally.
Regarding the card draws (discards) for a Soviet declaration of war on Turkey, there is real-world justification for this. In the game it’s easy to see the Soviets as an ally against the Axis; in real life, prior to Barbarossa much of the West didn’t see any real difference between Hitler and Stalin. There was considerable outrage in the West due to the Soviets joining in on the carving up of Poland; a Soviet declaration of war on Turkey would have fed the isolationists in the US and made the case for gearing up for war overseas more difficult. The reason for the harsh penalty for the Soviets taking a Turkish territory bordering the Med is also logical. Russia has wanted a warm water port for the last two centuries, and if they did attack Turkey they would certainly have done everything they could to drive to the Med. However, this would have been seen by England as a direct threat to their interests in that part of the world by a regime that, prior to Barbarossa, they considered to be just as bad as Hitler, and like Hitler was hostile to Britain and the US. And, again, it would have been more ammunition for the isolationists in America.
-
I think you need to not just read each bullet point, but also look at them as a whole and determine what the intent is of these rules. The point related to Manchuria states that Russia can’t move units, and subsequently lists no penalty for not doing so; ergo, the intent is that they can’t move these units – period. With Turkey, one of the points says pretty much the same thing – but in the next point lists a penalty if you don’t comply; therefore, the intent appears to be that you can move them (although at high risk). I believe this point is also there in the event that Germany is able to eliminate the garrison units through combat, which, according to this rule would generate a die roll.
I would like to clear something up- I agree with you that the Turkey border garrison situation should be flexible and handled as you propose. I have no problem with there being a way for the USSR player to choose how he wants to defend his country and decide whether he wants to risk Turkey becoming an Axis Minor.
My only point is that the bullet should be written differently so that there isn't any confusion as to the intent. It would be cleaner if the two bullets worked together to explain the situation on that front.
It shouldn't be written such that it is exactly like the SFE garrison requirement but doesn't mean the exact thing since it has a qualifier bullet that comes right after it.
I understand the idea of not taking each rule out of context, but if you just write the rule in as straight-forward a manner as possible, then you don't need to try to interpret the intent of the author. It is always easier to just say what you mean instead of saying something and then giving out a list of exceptions that explain what you just said.
As to the supply of minors thoughts you have, I like it. I was along the lines of what were discussing. I am glad that someone else is bringing it up to Mark and John.
Craig
-
well, the intent was to be just like the Soviet Far East. i.e. The Russians must maintain a garrison of 4 units on the border with Turkey. The bullet about "if they don't" was intended to address something like German units coming down and eventually killing of the Soviet garrsion and reducing it below 4 against the Soviet player's will.
So - to clear the rule up, the Soviet player must keep the minimum border requirements. The only way he gets below 4 units is due to events beyond his control.
I like the supply rule adjustments
-
Thanks Mark!
Your explanation makes perfect sense, but it is another example of what we have discussed before- the designer (you) knowing exactly what is intended by the rule but not putting all of the pertinent information into the rule so that other will understand exactly what you intended.
It's only 5 weeks to Origins!
Craig
-
Well, it's been a long time, but the issue of the Soviets declaring war on Turkey turns out to be a non issue. Jason sent this to me in an e-mail - it's from page 36 in the rulebook:
Because of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Soviet Union may only attack (as well as declare war or occupy) territories within the Nazi-Soviet Pact border (within the red border) until at war with either Japan or the European Axis. These are Vyborg, Estonia, Lithuania, Brest-Litovsk, Lwow, Bessarabia and Tabriz. Note: Bessarabia and Tabriz do not have any defending neutrals in them. Although Vyborg is part of Finland, treat Vyborg as an independent neutral territory for game play purposes. Once the Soviet Union is at war with Germany or Japan, it is free to declare war and attack any Axis and Neutral country on the map.
So, no pre-emptive attack by the Soviets. Just a lot of time wasted on a red herring. I guess that does prove that it helps to actually read the rules... :-[