Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Addeg 3

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Early attack on SU

Well , tanks are much more expensive now... So you would not be able to build 40 of them by summer 36

Second Germany has much less doctrines and her troops are not that good

Third the puppeting tour in the balkan and the dow on SU would drive the US WE way up... you may find yourself at war with the US in early 37 or even before

4th being at war means you lose the "free" doctrines from the czech event. Not good


So I am happy to play the 36 scenario as SU ... Feel free to take Germany :) ... No need to use the bug mentionned by Andrew

It looks like the ex-axis players having "lost" the 36 scenario are now intent on playing 39. Sore losing :) .. having played both, 36 is much more playable as I said, much less units nad hassle at start.... I used to be bored by the US but now I find them relaxing to play.... you can focus during the first few years and help UK manage their far flung empire by drawing their attention to events round the world.
 
Sore losers? Maybe if we was to play the same nations in 39. I rather think you're afraid of the 39 scenario...:eek:
 
No matter if my strategy would work out or not - the point is:

In '36 the German player has to be suicidal to wait until 38/39 to go to war if an experienced US is present.
So he has to go to war earlier to have any chance. Thereby screwing the whole purpose of staring in '36 - to allow people to build their country from scratch. So starting in '36 is like starting in '39 with a lot less troops. Rather boring.
 
The doctrines that Germany gets from events now are:

Spanish Civil War
---------------------
Early War Combat Testing (Land)
Manoeuvre Artillery Doctrine
Combined Arms Warfare Doctrine
Deep Area Defense Doctrine
Sheltered Airfields Organization

Treaty of Munich (29 Sep 1938)
--------------------
Late War Experience Analysis (Land)
Divisional Defensive Organization
Divisional Offensive Organization
Corps Long-Range Reconnaissance Doctrine
Signal Intelligence Operations
Early War Experience Analysis (Air)
Vertical Envelopment Doctrine
Combat Training Team Doctrine

I think the idea is to deter Germany from going to war before 39.

Andrew
 
The doctrines that Germany gets from events now are:
Click to expand...
Divisional Defensive Organization
Click to expand...

Sorry to jump in your thread, but Germany doesnt get the above mentioned doctrin.
Shouldent get it anyway because Divisonal offensive organization deactivates the above mentioned.
 
Germany receives divisional defensive doctrine if they choose not to press claims in the Munich event.

And i think the early war combat testing they got in Spain is the air one.

What is the argument about? We voted to play 39, isn't the debate finished with that?
 
Originally posted by Nomen Nescio
What is the argument about? We voted to play 39, isn't the debate finished with that?
Click to expand...
39 is not an option until the Soviet minister fix is done. Currently only 4 people have downloaded the ministers.zip file so I suppose that we have not all done this. The fix ought to be verified by getting the host (Jon) and USSR player (Tomar) to play a test game from 39 until Jan 40 at least.

It might be a good idea to sort out the Kars issue too. Here is the exact timing of what happened:

"15:00 November 25, 1939 : Turkey accepted Soviet Union's demands and ceded Kars."
"18:00 November 25, 1939 : Turkey accepted Soviet Union's demands and ceded ."
"9:00 November 26, 1939 : Italy annexed Turkey."

I'm not sure what the blank log entry at 18:00 means but include it in case it's relevant.

From what I can see Italy had no cause for complaint as Kars was ceded before he annexed Turkey. It's like Vichy where Italy doesn't get much of France, even though it is occupying provinces in South France.

Andrew
 
Andrew; you probably did see that Kars was occupied by Italy before Soviet demanded. You can't say that this is anything like Vichy; Vichy is created as a choice made by Italy's ally, and Vichy becomes Italy's ally as well.

The thing is that Soviet demanded Kars after Italy had taken it, and so had no right to do so.
 
Kars

The thing is if I were playing Italy and SU got Kars I would have accepted it without any discussion...

I was not specifically looking whether Italy possessed Kars or not...(as I was busy reogrganizing my numerous troops plus there was lag) I just made the claim to Turkey.. Turkey accepted the claim and now it is in game terms considered SU territory (i.e; I have no claims on Italy, I used up my diplomats) etc....

What Andrew means about Vichy is that Italy has to give back a lot of territory when Vichy happens and has no say in the matter.. that is how the game is currently. And there is a parallel with Kars.. In real terms it means that while Italy and Turkey were fighting the Turkish and soviet government reached an agreement where by Turkey ceded Kars to SU... and Italy just abides by this agreement (like it abided by the Vichy agreement and ceded back territory)
 
No, it's like Norway ceding Oslo to UK in 42.

Turkey did not control that province, and thus had no right to give it away.

Just picture it in real life - would Fascist Italy agree to Communist USSR to just take a piece of land they fought for?
 
A. UK had no claim on Oslo

B. Oslo is not on the border with UK

C. UK and germany were at war while Italy and SU are not

D I dont know if the italians fought for Kars, for all we know a truckload of bersaglieri just rode in to check out the sights

E Turkey owns Turkey and thus can give away anything it wants in Turkey to anyone it wants.. But this is matter for international lawyers and the arbitration court at the Hague :)

F The ability of Italy to dow a democracy without any ill effect is highly suspect in itself in terms of game mechanics... Italy is ill placed to complain about other game mechanics such as the demand territory. Similarly Italy was taking Kars only because it knows that game mechanics are such that SU will NOT go to war over Kars because of the huge penalties this entails... Italy dowing turkey and taking kars can be considered a huge exploit.

In reality one would think they would be quite content with all the res of Turkey and cede Kars to SU (I mean germany ceded half of Poland and the blatics to SU, do we really think Italy would take a tough stand on kars... most likely they woud avoid confrontation =or the germans would make them do so= and be happy to give Kars to SU in order not to risk a war)
 
I think that the USSR claim on Kars would justify a war against Italy if they did not agree to give it away. Just walking in there and taking control of it just because the game allows it is to me a cowardly act. A DOW would be appropriate.
 
Originally posted by Vissarion
A DOW would be appropriate.
Click to expand...
Indeed. If Italy wishes to contest the Soviet Union's prior claim to Kars then it may DoW the Soviet Union. If it is not prepared to do so then its soldiers will just watch as the Soviet Union's commisars go about their business. There are many real world examples of this and many such examples in the game. Administrative control of a region is not solely a matter of having soldiers there - the mechanics are more complex.

I see no reason to interfere with the game in this matter. The Soviet Union asserted its claim to this area first and so the game gives it priority. Italy has redress within the game. This is reasonable history. Play on, I say.

Andrew
 
I still disagree, but I won't waste anymore energy on this...




So will you do the testing of the minister files?
 
Originally posted by Vissarion
I still disagree, but I won't waste anymore energy on this...
Click to expand...

Yep, cannot see why there is such fuss, especially since Tomar said the province was of no importance to him.

But we should find a rule for future games. Any country that is under attack by a human player and diminished to a few provinces is very likely to give in to any demands (normally IMHO Turkey would not give in to SU demands), so I think we should ban demanding territory from countries that are in war with a human player.

Any comments?
 
Originally posted by Vissarion
So will you do the testing of the minister files?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure who you are talking to but I'm not going to test this any further myself as I'm not sure exactly what to look for. The testing should involve the host and one of the USSR players who reported the problem previously.

Andrew
 
Originally posted by Isebrand
But we should find a rule for future games. Any country that is under attack by a human player and diminished to a few provinces is very likely to give in to any demands (normally IMHO Turkey would not give in to SU demands), so I think we should ban demanding territory from countries that are in war with a human player.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Turkey now usually gives Kars to the USSR whether it is under attack from elsewhere or not.

Countries which are hard-pressed may be more likely to accede to such requests but that seems accurate. Historically, Czechoslovakia was dismembered by its neighbours after Munich - they all took coveted pieces - Germany, Poland and Hungary. Japanese demands on French Indo-China likewise exploited French weakness.

The real issue in respect of Turkey is that Italy should be able to DoW it without serious repercussions. Historically, the UK and Turkey declared that they would support each other in the event of aggression against either and France made it a Tripartite pact in October 39. The game tends to accelerate the timetable for general war but there should be a similar result - a significant risk of a DoW on Italy by the Allies.

Andrew
 
Originally posted by redawn
The real issue in respect of Turkey is that Italy should be able to DoW it without serious repercussions. Historically, the UK and Turkey declared that they would support each other in the event of aggression against either and France made it a Tripartite pact in October 39. The game tends to accelerate the timetable for general war but there should be a similar result - a significant risk of a DoW on Italy by the Allies.

Andrew
Click to expand...

So if you want historic gameplay - you should love '39. :)
There you have the '39 history. Otherwise, if you start in '36 with an US player, the Axis states need all advantages they can get. Inlcuding annexing Turkey, IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back