• 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.

Majorball

General
12 Badges
Sep 30, 2003
2.352
0
Visit site
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Battle for Bosporus
Proposed rules for next game...please add any oponions or disagreements so we may all discuss. It will take a few weeks to finalise so I advise everyone to make themselves familiar with the discussion. Anything currently here can be changed as requested by the group. A totally open game where anything goes will not work. If you have any ideas add them!!

Axis Countries
Germany
Italy
Japan
Romania
Hungary
Nationlist Spain


Allied Countries
UK
USA
France
Russia
Canada
Australia

1/HOUSE RULES Known bugs/exploits:

a)You may not serial build Province upgrades, rockets,aa, IC etc as version 1.2 has not fixed this bug.

b)No use of 'ghost' units for capturing enemy provinces etc.

c)No phoney wars (i.e. DOWing but not attacking).

2/PUPPETTING AND LIBERATING:

a)The Allies may not liberate any country till at war with the Axis

b)The Axis may not liberate any country till at war with the Allies(Japan may liberate Chinas)

c)The Italians must Annex Eithopia but may liberate them when at war with Allies.

d) Germany may not liberate Poland and France may not liberate countries till 1941. This is to stop ceratin events from firing which affect game balance.

3/ALLIANCES:

a)Allies and Axis can only join alliances with human controlled countries in their group ie Allies listed countries must join Allies.

b)Any human controlled minor country may join an alliance at anytime.

c)USSR cannot join allies and vica versa.

4/POLITICAL ACTIONS:

a)You may not influence or puppet a nation controlled by a human player without their agreement.

b)The UK may not DOW Japan (this leads to the USA being able to join.)

c)War in europe can start anytime

d)Japan may enter Axis alliance at anytime but must DOW on the USA also.

e)Anyone is free to bring a country to their alliance at any time.

5/TRADE AGREEMENTS:

a)No player may make any trades till the game is paused on the 7th January 1936. They may accept any deal offered by AI countries in this time. This is to allow traditional trades to be offered by minors ie Swedish ore to Germay etc

b)No economic warfare....UK,USSR and USA may not trade for rares in the first month of the game.

c)Any trade deals can be made or cancelled even those set at start of game.

6/NUCLEAR WEAPONS:

a)Can be researched and made at anytime!!!

7/SPECIAL RULES AND SPECIFIC COUNTRY RULES NOT ALREADY LISTED

a)Minor Allied or Axis troops can not be moved from home provinces until at war. CW minors cannot deploy in Africa/including Gilbralter or Middle East/India until Italy is in the war(this includes having ships loaded of the coast).

b)No limit on German forces in Africa but they may only enter North Africa when at war with the Allies

c)To prevent mass evacution of French troops from France prior to Vichy event there is a limit of 6 divisions of French troops which may be in Allied territory other than French.


I can add any rule suggested by the group and mdoify any rule listed here. A game without rules is no game at all. Please feel free to add comments so we may all discuss. I expect this will take some time to finalise. As our current games develop more rules may be needed .
 
Last edited:
Well I say no to not moving the USA intervention slider because it has other effects on the economy like lowering Consumer demand. If you want a rule to stop the USA entering too early make a date a date for it. Some of these rules are like going Sydney to Melbourne via Darwin :)

No to the ban on USA gearing up. Major, how could you propose such a radical rule after only a handfull of games???

I didn,t see the auto convoy rule proposed but just in case it is NO! :)


Most of the other rules seem ok.

__________________
 
7f. I agree with Nolan on the issue of NO to not gearing up for war, let the axis handle the issue, so leave the gearing events up to the USA player. It is fun plotting how to prevent the US gearing up anyway.

7a. On the issue on convoys im a BIG YES. This will make the game far more realistic in the atlantic and also for the allies who want to cripple japan with subs. It will force the allies and japan to devote IC to shipbuilding in terms of convoys, which happened big time in WWII. So YES on this rule.

I propose elimating most of the start dates for war. Lets leave it open and up the players when they want the war to start. This elimates people putting armies in big groups to save supplies, putting forces into puppets or minor nations and so on. Everyone will have to be organsied and prepared for war at anytime, which is completely realistic. WWII could have started in 38 or maybe not until 1940 these are all valid options.

4d,f,j,k,j,h (you have two j's & h's rules under section 4). If we have the war dates open, leave the US to sort its own sliders, no restirctions. There are events which cause lots of dissent when intervention sliders are moved to quickly and also move the slider back abit, and some random events which also cause dissent. Like ive said many times the game engine solves most of our problems for us. We dont need set rules for every possible situation leave up to the players. If italy invades turkey, the USSR has a right to DOW if they want or make a deal with the Axis, no need for a rule, same with many other situations.

4e. I dont think we need anyrules for the MR pact. Its an event leave it up to Germany and Russia to sort out.

5a,b,c. I agree with the trade issues.

1d. Why no DOW on Russia if they have dow on a third nation. I did it in our current game when Sweden was at war with the USSR. If USSR DOW's on Romania surely germany would also DOW to grab there share. I dont see the logic and think it is not needed.

2d. With the russians defending there border, and the poland not being pupeted by germany to prevent the IC moving. I think make this one rule, combine them, no need for two rules here.

3b. I dont see the need for restrictions on spain espically if there AI. I think we have proved this game spain can be more of a hinderance then an asset to the axis. Throw out the rule and leave it open, maybe the UK and france will annex spain before germans get there. Gibralter is now easily defended if the UK wishes to defend it.

Not completely sure on the limitations for both sides in africa yet, may be to restricitve and set in stone, but need time to think about this. All in all great work on the rules Major.
 
Last edited:
Try an be specific on which rule you do not like or want modified. I have numbered them for this reason.

Mike you want unrestricted DOW even on France from 1936 if permitted?

I cant see how we can have a half balanced game unless we have some rules on DOW. From the rules I have listed anything is open from 1939 Danzig event. If Japan annexes China they can find themselves at war with USA in 1938. Is everyone happy with this?
We must be specific on which rules you dont like ie rule 1c sucks and tell us what you want or wether you want it modified.

I am open to the USA on having free reign on slider moves. Be aware such action can result in the USA being in the war with Geramny from 1940. if they have free reign on sliders we need some dates for DOW's for them.

What I will do after we have had some discussion from everyone on a particular rule or a change to the ones already listed I will put it to the vote for the group in this thread. Majority rules.


So in answer to mikes proposal:

mike8472 said:
I agree with Nolan on the issue of NO to not gearing up for war, let the axis handle the issue, so leave the gearing events up to the USA player. It is fun plotting how to prevent the US gearing up anyway.

Major: I agree but we must have dates or circumstances for USA entry

On the issue on convoys im a BIG YES. This will make the game far more realistic in the atlantic and also for the allies who want to cripple japan with subs. It will force the allies and japan to devote IC to shipbuilding in terms of convoys, which happened big time in WWII. So YES on this rule.

Major:I agree with mike here

I propose elimating most of the start dates for war. Lets leave it open and up the players when they want the war to start. This elimates people putting armies in big groups to save supplies, putting forces into puppets or minor nations and so on. Everyone will have to be organsied and prepared for war at anytime, which is completely realistic. WWII could have started in 38 or maybe not until 1940 these are all valid options.

Major:Well this would alter the rule on Allied minor nations deploying to Africa and German divisions as well. Perhaps Mike we could leave this for another game where everything goes. We need to try and keep the basic timeline for war till at least 1939. If the Russians were to DOW the Germans in 1936 with the UK etc the game is over for the Germans. Our rules from 1939 Danzig event means it may be possible for the war in russia to start early. There are no dates for a Pacific war as JAPS can DOW anytime

If we have the war dates open, leave the US to sort its own sliders, no restirctions. There are events which cause lots of dissent when intervention sliders are moved to quickly and also move the slider back abit, and some random events which also cause dissent. Like ive said many times the game engine solves most of our problems for us.

I dont think we need anyrules for the MR pact. Its an event leave it up to Germany and Russia to sort out.

Major: Well I agree with this and I have said as such in the Rules. I think we need to prevent liberating of Poland as I think it is gamey

I agree with the trade issues.
 
Last edited:
I edited my last post major and numbered all the rules, makes it easy for everyone, you may want to edit your last post too.
 
Well we could leave the auto convoys on as long as the European Axis nations dont build carriers. Once the European Axis develope carriers then the Allies should be able to turn the auto convoys off.


_______________________

German land forces could be banned from North Africa untill an italian province there falls to the Allies.

Likewise non British Commonwealth land forces could be banned from North Africa untill the outbreak of war.


_______________________
 
Last edited:
A good point that Gezeder told me last night, we debated these rules for a few hours last night. Gezeder is in the less rules are better camp and im leaning that way too, although we do need some.

A point Gez raised about restrictions on forces to africa by both sides is "why should you be limited to make the same mistakes leaders made in WWII" Eg why would you only send 3 divisions if you know that is not enough, and they could possibly be destroyed, silly. Why would the UK not send enough forces to try and stop the axis also silly.

I think the point Gez is trying to make is that in a 1936 scenario we have to make less rules and restrictions as it is not going to be an historical game. If we want a historical game then play a later scenario like 38 or even 39 or 40. So we need to clarifiy what we want out of a 36 scenario.

I for one want the option to try new things, do different strategies, to improve upon what did or may not have hapened in the real WWII. If that involved going to war in 38 or waiting a year until 1940 then so be it. The point is each player will see each nation in each game differently, hence why we have so many different opinions. So what type of game do we want?

Nolan if we go down the path of limiting forces of certain types Eg carriers for the axis then do we also say well limit the amount of carriers the US can build. Just because germany IRL didnt build then, does that mean i am restricted to make those same mistakes. This is a game about what if?

As for the convoys there should be no issue as you have nearly 4 years to plan for it as the UK, far more then what the UK really did, and its the same for all sea faring nations. Lets not get to involved in a individual countries point of view, take a step back and think what is best for the whole game. Turning reosurce convoys on auto will affect all nations not just the UK, Japan basicaly lost the war as her merchant ships were all sunk and had no resources left to fight with. I would love to do this as the US but it would never happen as you can simply turn them off as you have large stockpiles.

So all turning on auto convoys for resources does is simulate that every nation needs resources and not the huge stockpiles we build up pre-war which are totaly unrealistic but to hard to fix, this is the easiest answer.

As for forces in Africa how about this. No German/commonwealth forces stationed there pre war. Once war happens its open season for the germans/commonwealth forces. This means that both sides will have the opportunity to stop the other forces arriving there. So if the Uk dosnt commit some forces to protecting the sea lanes in the med and allows German forces through then thats how it should be. Same for commonwealth if Axis forces cant stop the forces arriving then thats fine. This keeps the element of suprise and free flowing game, so each side can try and match what the other has if it can do so.
 
mike8472 said:
A good point that Gezeder told me last night, we debated these rules for a few hours last night. Gezeder is in the less rules are better camp and im leaning that way too, although we do need some.

A point Gez raised about restrictions on forces to africa by both sides is "why should you be limited to make the same mistakes leaders made in WWII" Eg why would you only send 3 divisions if you know that is not enough, and they could possibly be destroyed, silly. Why would the UK not send enough forces to try and stop the axis also silly.

I think the point Gez is trying to make is that in a 1936 scenario we have to make less rules and restrictions as it is not going to be an historical game. If we want a historical game then play a later scenario like 38 or even 39 or 40. So we need to clarifiy what we want out of a 36 scenario.

I for one want the option to try new things, do different strategies, to improve upon what did or may not have hapened in the real WWII. If that involved going to war in 38 or waiting a year until 1940 then so be it. The point is each player will see each nation in each game differently, hence why we have so many different opinions. So what type of game do we want?

Nolan if we go down the path of limiting forces of certain types Eg carriers for the axis then do we also say well limit the amount of carriers the US can build. Just because germany IRL didnt build then, does that mean i am restricted to make those same mistakes. This is a game about what if?

As for the convoys there should be no issue as you have nearly 4 years to plan for it as the UK, far more then what the UK really did, and its the same for all sea faring nations. Lets not get to involved in a individual countries point of view, take a step back and think what is best for the whole game. Turning reosurce convoys on auto will affect all nations not just the UK, Japan basicaly lost the war as her merchant ships were all sunk and had no resources left to fight with. I would love to do this as the US but it would never happen as you can simply turn them off as you have large stockpiles.

So all turning on auto convoys for resources does is simulate that every nation needs resources and not the huge stockpiles we build up pre-war which are totaly unrealistic but to hard to fix, this is the easiest answer.

As for forces in Africa how about this. No German/commonwealth forces stationed there pre war. Once war happens its open season for the germans/commonwealth forces. This means that both sides will have the opportunity to stop the other forces arriving there. So if the Uk dosnt commit some forces to protecting the sea lanes in the med and allows German forces through then thats how it should be. Same for commonwealth if Axis forces cant stop the forces arriving then thats fine. This keeps the element of suprise and free flowing game, so each side can try and match what the other has if it can do so.
Mike
The reason more Axis troops did not enter Africa is that the Italians could never supply them all. We all know if the Germans send a decent army they can kick the UK out of Africa very easily.

I dont want a game with war in any year before 1939. the game wasnt designed for that and like I said before the Russians and UK DOW on Germany with the French at the start of the 1936 game the game is over. Major war must start in 1939 for a decent game.

The restriction on Allied troop movements abroad was to represent the slow build up of Allied forces. The Italians shouldnt be faced with 20 Canadian and 15 Aussie divisions in the desert the moment war is declared. Come 1942 all restrictions cease anyhow and the Germans can send as many as they like. The UK economy is fragile enough and with extra convoys less Allied troops they are might as well not even start the game. Besides look at our game the Italians have pushed the UK right back and taken Suez after going thru Turkey. You think they need any more handicaps like 20 German divisions attacking thru Libya as well? the only reason the UK was able to capture Libya was no Italian divisions was in North Africa. That was no fun to me.totally unrealistic just the same as Russian river defense. Do we need to make rules that say Italy must defend its provinces also. I have been beat up pretty well and the only territory I have taken was undefended Libya and you want to allow unlimited German troops in Africa? Think about it carefully and look at the current map of our game.


Modified Spanish rule to include atatck on Spanish territory ends restrictions on foerign troops, planes and ships entering Spain.

b)Nationlist Spain may join the Axis alliance at anytime but no foreign troops, ships and planes may base in the country till Vichy has been offered or refused. If Allied troops have entered any Spanish territory then any forces may be sent to assist from any Ally. No spanish troops may launch attacks into France.

Removed this rule:
e)The USA must select 'NO' when offered gearing for war events(controversial???)


Modified rule 4m with restrictions on USA moving intervention slider lifted.


Modified rule 4n to allow German atatck on France prior to 1940 for Allied DOW before Danzig event and Allied attacks on German territory.



Mike has expressed some concerns on military control of Allied nations before war so we have come up with a proposal.

Eliminate need for rules 7c and 7d......by the Following restrictions:

The Allied players may not take Military control of AI minors until at war with Axis and troops may not be deploy in other countries till at war either.

In return the Axis will be limited to sending 3 divisions of any type to Africa thru a African port every month once Italy is at war with the Allies.

The reason behind this is to stop Allied nations sending all their troops overseas for a war they didnt know was coming and also stops an instant build up of German divisions in Africa ie 20 divisions in a few days.

No restrictions on Aircraft....

Any discussion for this modification?
 
Last edited:
mike8472 said:
1. A point Gez raised about restrictions on forces to africa by both sides is "why should you be limited to make the same mistakes leaders made in WWII" Eg why would you only send 3 divisions if you know that is not enough, and they could possibly be destroyed, silly. Why would the UK not send enough forces to try and stop the axis also silly. .

I agree!!

mike8472 said:
2. I think the point Gez is trying to make is that in a 1936 scenario we have to make less rules and restrictions as it is not going to be an historical game. .

I agree!!
The more rules we have etc... the more we will have to pause the game, check our "in-house rulebook" to see what our options are, re-check the situation, assess ramifications for each option both for oursleves and to fit-in with the rules, before we can progress...slowwww!!

mike8472 said:
3. If we want a historical game then play a later scenario like 38 or even 39 or 40. So we need to clarifiy what we want out of a 36 scenario. .

I agree, subject to what is actually in the finished rules "product"

mike8472 said:
4. I for one want the option to try new things, do different strategies, to improve upon what did or may not have hapened in the real WWII. .

YES

mike8472 said:
5. The point is each player will see each nation in each game differently, hence why we have so many different opinions. So what type of game do we want?

6. Nolan if we go down the path of limiting forces of certain types Eg carriers for the axis then do we also say well limit the amount of carriers the US can build. Just because germany IRL didnt build then, does that mean i am restricted to make those same mistakes.

7. This is a game about what if? .

YES, YES, YES!!!

I get concerned about a plethora of rules -- as per my response outlined in (2) above.

I also have seen AARs posted where players have started out as POLAND, DOWed GER in 1936/7, thrashed them and gone on to change history......radical stuff!!.... so some rules are important!!

In summary though (7) is IMHO a paramount and fun reason to play the game.

Cheers
 
Im going to discuss a contraversal topic.

DOW dates, get rid of them.

I dont think we really need DOW dates, that set everything in stone. No suprise, everyone knows what to expect. Everyone gorups there armies up and fleets to save supplies, this is not realisitc.

My reason are this. HOI 2 punishes countries through the game mechanics for nations that DOW or go to war early. For example.

If Germany wanted to go to war early, there belgierance would rise very quickly resulting in the USA getting into the war early. Germany would not have big stockpiles of resources. Germany would have few allies yet.

If the USSR wanted to go to war with Germany or italy early, they would be severly handicapped. If the USSR DOW's on another country they do not get the Great Patratoic War events meaning there army is doomed to fight very poorly. This was built into the game to punish the USSR for DOW early.

The allies need slider moves to DOW early and i doubt that would happen before 39 anyhow. If the USA moves it sliders to quickly to interventions is runs the risk of lots of dissent and reversing the sliders and how, plus more bad random events.

Japan needs time to conquere china, and build forces to take on the Allies with its low IC, not in its interest to join much before 1940.

Italy is the one nation that can DOW on a few minors, but would also soon find itself at war with the Allies or USSR and all alone and defeated quickly.

The only area i can see that maybe we need one restriction is Spain. Lets all leave spain to fight its own war and see what happes, thats if there not a human player. that avoids issues we have had before.

This would add excitment not knowing what to expect. You would have to keep your armies and forces ready. constantly sending spy ships to keep an eye on enemy moves. Far more exciting and realisitc if you ask me. We do need some of the rules above, but DOW dates, why? when the game has built in safe guards for it. If players choose to take that risk then they could go to there doom.

The only thing we need to do, is if your are considering a risky option disucss it will your allies first to gain there opinion before you act. We all know each other well now and i think we can work out any issues as we have done
 
Last edited:
The rules about africa are a sticking point.

I think the best way to handle it is not have any German units in africa pre-war. No CW (commonwealth) forces in africa or middle east pre-war or Uk prewar. Once war with Germany happens UK can ship what it needs to its home islands or gibralter. Once war with Italy happens UK can ship whatever it needs to Africa or Middle east.

I think that should do it. The Uk would take some time to ship large forces to Africa giving italy some time to go on the offensive if they can. German forces should not really get to africa in force if the UK denies Axis easy sea transport across the med or around north africa to invade morroco. If it does happen well UK lost the seas so it deserves to be punished or at least the intiative exploited. If axis fail, and tey lose ships, transports at sea and Libya falls as has happendin number of our games then they deserve to lose all those forces.

So its left to how a player fights his war has to what forces can be sent to africa. The axis also have the opportunity to try and stop allies getting to africa from the UK or CW nations if they can reach that far.

what stopped Germany sending more forces to Africa was the UK mastery of the sea, and the continued sinking of italian convoys. They simple could not get enough forces to africa to fight the Uk. Where the UK could continualy reinforce there forces from the sea. So in order to win in africa you need to win a sea, and thats where UK holds all the cards.

On another point, if Germany does send large forces to africa they have to supply them, if stuffs up italian TC so there whole army fights poorly, the infrastructure can not handle it. Plus Germany has to be prepared to lose those forces, if it did it would lose the whole war. So with all these game mechanics at play i see no need to regualate with our own rules besdies what is stated above.
 
Ok mike
Answer two questions for me...

I am all for no military control of allied minors or Allied minor troops leaving their own territory before war. Once war starts anything can be sent anywhere. But the big issue I have with free german deployment of divisions to Africa is if the Italians were able to build up to 20 transports the Axis could ships 20 divisions in 2 days when no port in North Africa could have coped with half that in 2 months!! I still say the Germans should be limited to sending 3 divisions per month once Italy has entered the war. The game mechanics dont allow for naval blockages as such because after 4 hours you can retreat and you would nearly get every transport thru to Africa in 2 days tops. If we are going to say no UK allied divisions in UK territory before war than I vote 100% for a build up of Germans troops at the rate of 3 per month.
Do you agree with this?

The rules about DOW anytime by anyone is fine with me but the rules for a human Nationlist Spain must remain. And no one may interfere with the civil war.
 
I agree with most of the above but...

Mike, I think you misunderstood my point about carriers and convoys. Im not for restricting the Building of certain types units (carriers). What I said was if the European Axis Build carriers then the Auto convoy rule should no longer be used. If the Axis use a doctrine of commerce raiding then the auto convoy rule may be ok but if the Axis decide to contest the High Seas with a true blue water fleet (with carriers) then of course the convoys should have the option of closing down.

I dont see how having to leave auto convoy on is more realistic. Acctually it makes it very unrealistic. In wartime the first order issued from the Admiralty is "Close all convoys down". Using a convoy system means sending out the merchant ships in protected groups at certain times and avoids having all the merchant ships being strung out all over the map all the time (like auto convoy). If the Axis wants to have more fun with subs thats fine but dont screw with the Allied convoy system just for that. Its way too important.

Mike, You often mention how boring and predictable the game gets but you want auto convoy left on??? It will just be a drain on UK IC and make it easier for the Axis navy and would certainly not be more realistic.

The Battle for the Atlantic is much too important for the British player to have to fight with such a restrictive rule placed upon him. If the Axis are finding it boring and they think the game isn,t being played the way it should be well then why dont the Axis ever try an Air Battle of Britain? The likely reason is because they dont think they could win it. Yet the Axis want special rules to fight in other theatres that must be fought in the way they think it should be???

The Jap economy will suffer too later in the war but we never seem to get to the second half of the war.


______________
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree with you Nolan it is an extra drain on IC for the UK but it also affects all other countries like Japan, Italy and USA. I am tempted to give it a try but really all it means is the UK has less IC to spend on other thing.,

I modifed all the rules again..eliminated DOW restrictions etc except important ones and greatly reduced the amount of RULES!!! Please read and add comments.


We need to vote on the following rule which may make some unhappy. Please reply and paste either YES or NO.

The rule is:

All Nations must keep resource convoys(not supply)on Auto and Auto update.

Vote Yes or NO.
 
Last edited:
All Nations must keep resource convoys(not supply)on Auto and Auto update.

I vote Yes.

If this passes ill also vote yes for restrictions on Germans in Africa but we cant keep one area fair and not another. Its both or none.

If we cant simulate the convoy system realisitcaly then there is no point debating to even try to keep things realistic in Africa or the Med by limiting german forces becuase i wont do it. If we are only going to keep certain things realisitc to suit the allies but when we need rules changed to make them more realistic to suit Axis its no go.

The UK and USA devoted huge amounts of IC to building convoys and there esocurts and fighting the battle of the atlantic. The US alone build 150 escourt carriers to protect convoys in the atlantic by the end of the war.

This keep things even for all nations to sink each others convoys. We cant limit resources as its to hard even though its totaly unrealisitc, this is the only option. It should be possible to win the war by sinking convoys as what happened to Japan IRL.
 
There supply and resources convoys use the same auto maintain. Thats why its a problem. The supply convoy maintenance out of UK is way too important to be left to the AI. Auto create and destroy resources and supply convoys are seperate but they are not the problem. Questions like... will the ai fill an iron convoy from freetown while leaving the supply convoy to the 8th Army in Egypt short?. Thats the biggest worry for me with auto maintain.


__________________________
 
On units to Africa I say lifting unit restrictions is fine. If Germany commits in force to Africa the Axis will no doubt enjoy some big victories there. Im sure any reasonable German player will realise that Africa is a side show anyway. Mike is reasonable and wise. As the Germans he usually commits just enough force to turn the tide of war in the Axis favor. This is all that is needed and can be done quite economically. If we have a massive German move on Africa and the Allies and Axis are facing each other across the Limpopo river in 41 its no big problem. With the entry of the USA Africa becomes a giant trap for the Axis anyway.

We also have the 'El Duce factor'. Im sure no self respecting Italian player wants all his glory stolen by Adolf :)

And of course any energy the Germans spend in Africa will make it harder for them to win in Russia.


_____________________
 
Last edited:
Well Nolan has a very good point here. With auto maintain the AI will take ships from your supply convoys to fill up resource convoys(As happened to me). So you may need supplies in Eygpt and it takes all your transports for a resource convoy that comes from Singapore. I cant see how we can work around this with out super micro management on behalf of the UK to manually add ships to their resource convoys. I think they have too much to do to micro manage convoys as well. They need a seperate button that you can select either auto maintain resources or supplies seperately then it would work. I had heaps of problems getting supplies thru sometimes and I had to cancel all my convoys at stages during the game.
 
Well, I disagree with having so many rules, but I know it's what the majority of players want so I won't belabour the point. I do like the freeing up of DoW dates, and assume that means there is no problem with say, invading france immediatly after poland, etc etc?

If so, that's great, I think it will be much more exciting.

I do find it strange that the Axis have limits on what forces can be shipped to Africa, yet the Allies don't. What is to stop the US shipping all of it's divisions to Africa and overrunning the Axis? (Keep in mind that Could happen in 1940, yes? It would be a weaker US, but it could still happen.)

Personally I would think the Germans getting too involved in Africa when the Soviets or US can DoW early would probably be a bad strategic move anyway, but I'd like them to have to oppertunity! :)

Is it too early to have Dibs on a nation? I know I've started like 3 games with you guys as the USSR, I'd Really love to have a game as the Soviets where I actually see combat :)

Oh, one last thing.

Keep in mind any game balancing considerations are almost Certain to be moot. C.O.R.E. is likely to be out by then. In my opinion we should really just stick to game engine issues (Like Auto Convoys regarding the wonky naval combat/blockade engine, and letting the AI trade for the first 7 days, etc.) and general player desires regarding Diplomatic options. (Such as no USSR joining Allies, etc)

Gezeder
 
I vote no for auto convoys, but yes for German intervention in Africa being up to the player.

Auto-convoys only screws the UK, add German intervention and the UK may as well be AI.