Proposed New Rules Aussie open game

[unmerged(50486)]

IVe only 2 comments for the above.

Changing ground doctrines, Russia goes Germany techs, and Germany has no chance to get past the 1st province let alone to the river line. (weve BTDT soooooo many times).


As for editing islands to supply. Bit unrealistic that UK or USA cant ship some supps to an island even if a random minor owns it dont you think. (within reason goes for axis as well)

"Oh Sorry eisenhower we cant send a ship with food and oil to that island it doesnt have our flag on it,b ut our men are dying there!!!, Tough Luck!"

Bring back HOI 1 Convoy systems!!

 

[Majorball]

I was giving this some serious thought and it is unrealistic and not a fair rule when you think about it.

If I as Germany are sinking minor forces convoys of which I have sunk many in this game is it fair that you can just take control of that island even though I have 100 plus subs out there sinking convoys and yours will just always get through due to numbers.

What nation in there right mind would send convoys through sub infested waters to land troops on and island that in real life would be impossible to supply.

Now the arugment that the allies would just supply the island anyway is simply rubbish. They would not supply it if was through sub infested waters.

You should have to make decisions on how many forces you can put there, how many can you supply.

This rule gives to much advanatage to anyone who simply wants to take an island be dammed who its owned by and penalises which ever team is trying to cut off that islands supply.

Do you see what im getting at, you penalise one team when they did nothing wrong to correct a problem that wouldnt exist if to many forces wernt placed there in the first place. Or undo all the good work of a player who went to the effort to kill convoys of minor forces.

A way to avoid penalising one side may be to edit in a certain number of convoys for minors if we think it is too small. Once there sunk there sunk they will have to build more if thats we want to go. The AI does build convoys and will in time when they get low or if they cant supply a certain region they build them. But obviously there is a delay in when they get built and this would create a very realistic supply problem espically if you have large forces on an island.

To me this rule is unfair for all sides or penalises one team to much. Supply problems are part of the game, you should magicaly be able to gain an island and flood it with 500 convoys through sub infested water knowing only maybe 20 will get sunk at most meaning a huge influx of supplies.

This simply would not happen it is unrealistic and unfair.

I remember one game Mike where you had so many units on Portugese island of Azores cause you allied them and the Portuguese could not supply the troops, aircraft and subs you had there. I think the fix was to transfer it over to Germans. We all know the convoy system is flawed and wether the island is supplied by minors or UK someones convoys are going to get sunk. Next thing you will be saying the Aussies and UK cant give islands to USA to supply their forces. As MG is saying the old convoy rules where you could supply any of your allied nations was better. You are never going to stop players supplying their armies on islands by using Subs. Give it some more thought cause what yo uthought of this time is dumb. Who cares what nation flag is o nthe isalnd if another nation has troops there they should be able to send their own supply ships to feed them. Never seen a Sub fleet yet that can stop entire islands from being supplied thats just ludicrous.

The AI always has trouble supplying islands regardless if you sink their convoys or not. They only ever send enough to supply their own troops and ships. So if your building for invasion after about 3 hours your troops are out of supply for the rest of the day. The AI cannot and never will send enough resources to an island to supply forces of a major power.

SUB infested waters?? When did yo think that one up?...never heard of that happening.

Should never have put this up as a rule cause we always edit any way for both sides when it comes to supply issues.

I know what you are saying but the game is flawed in regards to Convoys and supplies. I like to see a rule where UK must keep Auto convoys on rather then turn them off

 

[mike8472]

I remember one game Mike where you had so many units on Portugese island of Azores cause you allied them and the Portuguese could not supply the troops, aircraft and subs you had there. I think the fix was to transfer it over to Germans. We all know the convoy system is flawed and wether the island is supplied by minors or UK someones convoys are going to get sunk. Next thing you will be saying the Aussies and UK cant give islands to USA to supply their forces. As MG is saying the old convoy rules where you could supply any of your allied nations was better. You are never going to stop players supplying their armies on islands by using Subs. Give it some more thought cause what yo uthought of this time is dumb. Who cares what nation flag is o nthe isalnd if another nation has troops there they should be able to send their own supply ships to feed them. Never seen a Sub fleet yet that can stop entire islands from being supplied thats just ludicrous.

The AI always has trouble supplying islands regardless if you sink their convoys or not. They only ever send enough to supply their own troops and ships. So if your building for invasion after about 3 hours your troops are out of supply for the rest of the day. The AI cannot and never will send enough resources to an island to supply forces of a major power.

SUB infested waters?? When did yo think that one up?...never heard of that happening.

Should never have put this up as a rule cause we always edit any way for both sides when it comes to supply issues.

I know what you are saying but the game is flawed in regards to Convoys and supplies. I like to see a rule where UK must keep Auto convoys on rather then turn them off

Yes I know it happened for me once, but I never asked for it. If I remeber right you suggested it.

I dont think it is really right though for Islands to swap nations. Not only can you supply it you can improve it when you shouldnt be able to. Its the same for me with my minors like romanian, bulgaria, hungary. I would love to build forts, airfields, AA and so on, but cannot. Will I also be given there provinces to improve? Where does it end, whats good for one side is surely good for another.

Ive never seen in history anywhere were a nation sent fleets of some 500 convoys to one island to break through the sub blockade to get supplies through. Show me were this happened. As this is what replicating. The system is manuly tweaked by players to avoid a subs or other convoys raiding ships is not realistic. A player can manualy put up to 1000 convoys at a time if they want to with hundreds of escourts. This play basicly eimates an entire part of the game as it is impossible to play against.

Basicaly to fix a problem your creating a another problem, just you dont see it that way as you dont play the other side. I understand the supply problem, what im saying though is if you put 10 divisions on an island which is a massive amount of troops, you should expect supply problems.

If we agree to keep it this way then yes I agree auto convoys should be used.

If the convoy system is broken and we are using this work around then auto convoys should all be on. At present you cannot fight and win the battle of the atlantic. I argued this along time ago but was ignored. Finaly we have come to reliase the supply system dosnt work well. Anyone can manipulate the convoys system so it is nearly unbeatable.

I agree auto convoys should always be used. This is the only way to simulate the normal battle of the atlantic or battle for the pacific in terms of convoys.

Unless we make this part of the game playable and winable the only other alternative is to always invade the UK, which brings in the US and unblances the whole game and makes it a much shorter game like our last one.

Play the game is what ment to be played, leave auto convoys on. If we do this then yes I agree to editing islands as your still giving the other side a chance to hurt them realisticly. If we dont have auto convoys on then i totaly disagree with editing islands as your having your cake and eating it as well no matter which side its for as im sure it will affect all sides in time.

 

[mike8472]

IVe only 2 comments for the above.

Changing ground doctrines, Russia goes Germany techs, and Germany has no chance to get past the 1st province let alone to the river line. (weve BTDT soooooo many times).


As for editing islands to supply. Bit unrealistic that UK or USA cant ship some supps to an island even if a random minor owns it dont you think. (within reason goes for axis as well)

"Oh Sorry eisenhower we cant send a ship with food and oil to that island it doesnt have our flag on it,b ut our men are dying there!!!, Tough Luck!"

Bring back HOI 1 Convoy systems!!

Sorry Donitz that 500 convoy the enemy sent to the island made it past our 50 subs operating in the area. Its just the magical powers the allies have to close down every convoy route and send so many at once, and not lose any.

Remeber in hoi each submarine represent 3 acutal subs. So if ive got 18 subs, its actualy 54 subs in the area.

I will agree to the editing of Islands as long as auto convoys are used to properly represent the convoy system. Other wise I totaly disagree with this and will not play under these conditions.

 

[Majorball]

Sorry Donitz that 500 convoy the enemy sent to the island made it past our 50 subs operating in the area. Its just the magical powers the allies have to close down every convoy route and send so many at once, and not lose any.

Remeber in hoi each submarine represent 3 acutal subs. So if ive got 18 subs, its actualy 54 subs in the area.

I will agree to the editing of Islands as long as auto convoys are used to properly represent the convoy system. Other wise I totaly disagree with this and will not play under these conditions.

Well I offered up Auto Convoys a long time ago but then you run into the problem of having a lot of foreign troops in your area of Supply and your convoys only send through enough supplies to maintain your troops. So if USA sends 50 divisions to India the UK auto convoy system will only send through enough to supply the UK army in the region.

I am not really fussed on Supply to islands etc but if the only way into Europe is a base that happens to be on and island which belongs to one of your minor allies its going to be impossible to use it as a base of operations unles you can buy it off them.

I can eliminate this rule if you like but it wont help you and your convoy war while we have the current convoy system. Auto convoys just will not send enough supplies to where its needed.

I will remove this ruling...we can deal with supply issues on a case by case scenario ok?

What about Italian entry..need a ruling there?

 

[mike8472]

Well I offered up Auto Convoys a long time ago but then you run into the problem of having a lot of foreign troops in your area of Supply and your convoys only send through enough supplies to maintain your troops. So if USA sends 50 divisions to India the UK auto convoy system will only send through enough to supply the UK army in the region.

I am not really fussed on Supply to islands etc but if the only way into Europe is a base that happens to be on and island which belongs to one of your minor allies its going to be impossible to use it as a base of operations unles you can buy it off them.

I can eliminate this rule if you like but it wont help you and your convoy war while we have the current convoy system. Auto convoys just will not send enough supplies to where its needed.

I will remove this ruling...we can deal with supply issues on a case by case scenario ok?

What about Italian entry..need a ruling there?

The supply issue you talk about has been fixed with this patch.

Supplies are now correctly taced back through your allies or puppets to you. Meaning any additional supply cost via allied forces in your land will be add to your own cost. So auto convoys should account for the extra need.

This never happened previously and was one reason like you said for the convoys.

There are also multiple options in the convoy setup. One is not to create/disband resource convoys the other supplies. So if you set up your own convoy route it will remain open while keeping the other auto convoys running. The only other option on will be the auto maintain convoys that will simple replace losses you might suffer in either your manulay create routes or the auto routes.

To me this is just like auto promotions we turn that off becuase we think it is gamey. How can our present rules be fair when a battle for the atlantic can never really be fought. The only option really is to invade the UK and take them out, as all other options to try and defeat them are not open.

Im happy for the Island edits to go ahead to solve supply problems but as long as auto convoys are used to give the already disadvanatage other team a chance at sinking them. This would simply replicate how the war was fought and how the game was built to be played. This woulds apply to all sides. Note I already play this way and cannot remeber the last time I created my own convoys. Even when ive played as Japan and Italy I did it this way.

This is the only fair option in terms of convoys for all sides. Let us finaly be able to have a battle for the atlantic or battle for the pacific. Wouldnt it be nice to acutaly be able to defeat either the UK via convoys or Japan. This is what did or nearly happened in the war. Why are we so afraid to play it that way.

As for Italy joining the war and CW force movement. I think CW movment (Aus, NZ, SA) limited to Italian DOW. Italy can only DOW after both Poland and Beligum have fallen.

Its that easy stop UK getting gang banged early. If we just allow CW movement then Italy will join sept 1st 1939 in every game as it is forced to do so other wise be at a big disadvanatage. I would prefer to give Italy the option to join later and avoid gang bang the UK.

I think thats a fair restriction. I would like a totaly open DOW policy but like Germany is restricted to danzig there needs to be a little restriction to give the UK a chance. Other wise UK is just going to get pumped big time every game. Look what happens now in most games with UK and its only Germany early.

Thats my opinion anyway.

 

[Majorball]

The supply issue you talk about has been fixed with this patch.

Supplies are now correctly taced back through your allies or puppets to you. Meaning any additional supply cost via allied forces in your land will be add to your own cost. So auto convoys should account for the extra need.

This never happened previously and was one reason like you said for the convoys.

There are also multiple options in the convoy setup. One is not to create/disband resource convoys the other supplies. So if you set up your own convoy route it will remain open while keeping the other auto convoys running. The only other option on will be the auto maintain convoys that will simple replace losses you might suffer in either your manulay create routes or the auto routes.

To me this is just like auto promotions we turn that off becuase we think it is gamey. How can our present rules be fair when a battle for the atlantic can never really be fought. The only option really is to invade the UK and take them out, as all other options to try and defeat them are not open.

Im happy for the Island edits to go ahead to solve supply problems but as long as auto convoys are used to give the already disadvanatage other team a chance at sinking them. This would simply replicate how the war was fought and how the game was built to be played. This woulds apply to all sides. Note I already play this way and cannot remeber the last time I created my own convoys. Even when ive played as Japan and Italy I did it this way.

This is the only fair option in terms of convoys for all sides. Let us finaly be able to have a battle for the atlantic or battle for the pacific. Wouldnt it be nice to acutaly be able to defeat either the UK via convoys or Japan. This is what did or nearly happened in the war. Why are we so afraid to play it that way.

As for Italy joining the war and CW force movement. I think CW movment (Aus, NZ, SA) limited to Italian DOW. Italy can only DOW after both Poland and Beligum have fallen.

Its that easy stop UK getting gang banged early. If we just allow CW movement then Italy will join sept 1st 1939 in every game as it is forced to do so other wise be at a big disadvanatage. I would prefer to give Italy the option to join later and avoid gang bang the UK.

I think thats a fair restriction. I would like a totaly open DOW policy but like Germany is restricted to danzig there needs to be a little restriction to give the UK a chance. Other wise UK is just going to get pumped big time every game. Look what happens now in most games with UK and its only Germany early.

Thats my opinion anyway.

Well you need to play UK you will understand that not enough supplies are sent and troops run out of supplies half way through a day. Nothing has been fixed and you cannot set individual convoys to manual control and some to auto. Its either all auto or all manual. Playing the UK will give you a better understanding of how the supplies dont work like they should.

Convoys work fine with your own troops but do not send enough supplies when minor forces are present. If you do not have 1 of your own ships in a distant port allied troops and ships there die through lack of supply as the Auto convoy system will not ship to areas that have no units from that country owning the province.

I agree with everything you have said in regards to convoys its just Auto convoys do not ship enough supplies for additional Allied forces present in a province.

 

[unmerged(50486)]

A province should not be edited from say UK to USA, If per sday UK is getting convoy raped.

The other thing your overlooking mike is what your saying is your subs are always in 1 province intercepting the incoming convoys and that bogus. The subs alternate sea zones, otherwise Allies would sink them like skunks.

A succesfull Sub caimpaign does NOT stop convoys it does obliterate them however, time and time again (having done this myself) you can literally bring UK to there knees by sinking convoys.

If UK sends 1000 Convoys in 1 shipment then if your subs pick it up they wont just sink 10 or 20 convoys they WILL sink 50 in 1 hit. Ive seent his many times and been ont he receiving end of it several times.

Your argument of getting hungarian provinces to build shit on is padantic at best, perhaps a fall out thought from your present (as i perceive it) failed strategy). Players are able to trade any province they own but if they dont own the prvince and meerly control it we all know you cant swap the province, and thus requires an edit.

6,000,000 submarines in one sea zone never ever stopped an entire convoy fleet getting to its destination.

I can see where your going with this, but i dont entirely agree with it. UK giving a province to USA to supply india or Africa should probably be frowned upon but even that is stupid.

Players just need ot be careful they dont capture key islands with no Major Troops ie (Canada taking Iceland is a good example).

Submarine raping works perfectly fine, it cripples a nation very badly. Maybe you have just never been on the receivng end properly to fathom this. No Submarine fleet ever stopped a nation from supplying its global assets, but they sure can hamper it very badly.

Infact i recall the game where Joel and you were Coop Germany. I couldnt supply india and thus withdrew from india because you guys hammered my convoys. We never asked for usa to get a province in india so they could supply it.

I dont entirely disagree with you, but i certainly dont agree with your point. As with everything it is a situation of reasonable questionability.

I will NEVER use Auto Convoy. I want to know exactly how many tonnes of food and Oil im sending somewhere and have strategic reserves for ships and air to fall back on.

Subs are not a means to an end. They have the power to stop UK bringing material in from its colonies and also to hamper it supplying its colonies. Thats about as good as it gets anything else would be laudible.

With Azores in Axis hands and a succesfully Convoy raiding caimpaign, Axis can expect to stop UK imports of material via convoy and drop the USA-UK trade to about 3pc, meaning if i send gunny 5K rares he will be lucky to get 100rares. Something ive always bitched about but hey thems the breaks.

The Mighty German Submerged submersible Fleet! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[unmerged(50486)]

Its that easy stop UK getting gang banged early. If we just allow CW movement then Italy will join sept 1st 1939 in every game as it is forced to do so other wise be at a big disadvanatage. I would prefer to give Italy the option to join later and avoid gang bang the UK.

I think you and munster disprooved the whole gangabng theory last night. Italy is STUPID to join early unless Germany is prepared to back them up 100%.

Unless Uk makes a fatal miscalculation your only shot at Africa is now through Turkey or a very risky gambit over Syria.

I will however add that other groups who use or Italian CW restriction rules love it. Not because it stops UK gangbang but because it stops Italy getting its ass invaded in 1939.

I know i sound like a pompous prick, but i have played soooooo many more games in other groups then you guys, and ive seen alot of different techniques. Italy is not invincible it needs everything Germany has to back it up or it is practically worthless.

 

[unmerged(59421)]

Honestly guys. I think the current set of rules are OK, we just need to play different countries. The reason all this debate over rules has come up is because we are making biased judgement from the point of veiw of the country/alliance we continuously play. Personally I would like to to play America or Italy, or 'the devil made me do it' get my ass handed to me as the UK. Just my thoughts, but seriously you guys can't tell me that playing the same country every single game we play as a group doesn't get boring? SE.

 

[unmerged(50486)]

Honestly guys. I think the current set of rules are OK, we just need to play different countries. The reason all this debate over rules has come up is because we are making biased judgement from the point of veiw of the country/alliance we continuously play

TOUCHE!

 

[Majorball]

Honestly guys. I think the current set of rules are OK, we just need to play different countries. The reason all this debate over rules has come up is because we are making biased judgement from the point of veiw of the country/alliance we continuously play. Personally I would like to to play America or Italy, or 'the devil made me do it' get my ass handed to me as the UK. Just my thoughts, but seriously you guys can't tell me that playing the same country every single game we play as a group doesn't get boring? SE.

Yes our current rules are fine but we are looking at an alternative set of rules..yo unever know perhaps they may be adopted in the future. Only time I ever heard of Axis being bored is when their ass is getting handed to them on a plate.

 

[mike8472]

I think you and munster disprooved the whole gangabng theory last night. Italy is STUPID to join early unless Germany is prepared to back them up 100%.

Unless Uk makes a fatal miscalculation your only shot at Africa is now through Turkey or a very risky gambit over Syria.

I will however add that other groups who use or Italian CW restriction rules love it. Not because it stops UK gangbang but because it stops Italy getting its ass invaded in 1939.

I know i sound like a pompous prick, but i have played soooooo many more games in other groups then you guys, and ive seen alot of different techniques. Italy is not invincible it needs everything Germany has to back it up or it is practically worthless.

All this statment shows is the total lack of understanding you have or relayed to you buy gunny what is about to befall the UK. By end of 1940 the UK will be lucky to still be in the game much like the UK last game. Only the best play possible by gunny will prevent this with no mistakes.

We will see if your statment holds true in about 9 months time.

 

[unmerged(64512)]

Honestly guys. I think the current set of rules are OK, we just need to play different countries. The reason all this debate over rules has come up is because we are making biased judgement from the point of veiw of the country/alliance we continuously play. Personally I would like to to play America or Italy, or 'the devil made me do it' get my ass handed to me as the UK. Just my thoughts, but seriously you guys can't tell me that playing the same country every single game we play as a group doesn't get boring? SE.

Yeah playing a different country at each game avoid having a biased judgement toward the rules. In our games we try to enhance the "French phoney war" from 1rst sept 39, otherwise Italy or Germany can get invaded easy if UK setup and actions are much aggressive, we ain't nerfing UK but giving him the firepower later in game.
In other hand we nerfed both USA(AI till war) and Japan (vs human nat china), USA is no longer a warmachine smashing everything on it way when the bell of war ring .Japan with his low IC can't recover from his losses if he engage his navy too far from his bases or aircover but have a decent army to garrison his pacific holdings and match UK in Burma.

 

[unmerged(50486)]

Hiensen there is a thread below this one, Aussie Second Game, thats the next new game were starting will probably have 1-2 sessions a week. It isnt starting for 2 weeks though as one of our players is away. Days to be decided start time 7-8pm local which is 10-11amCET

 

[unmerged(64512)]

Ya I posted there

 

[mike8472]

All this statment shows is the total lack of understanding you have or relayed to you buy gunny what is about to befall the UK. By end of 1940 the UK will be lucky to still be in the game much like the UK last game. Only the best play possible by gunny will prevent this with no mistakes.

We will see if your statment holds true in about 9 months time.

Hehe last nights session proved me right with the UK being hammered all over the med.

Its easy for the UK to best up on lowly Italy, but Germany was simply biding its time waiting for the moment to strike and that strike basicaly destroyed the UK med fleet, wiped out the UK air forces as a threat and destroyed 11 UK divisions in a failed attempt to take africa.

 

[unmerged(50486)]

Hehe last nights session proved me right with the UK being hammered all over the med.

Its easy for the UK to best up on lowly Italy, but Germany was simply biding its time waiting for the moment to strike and that strike basicaly destroyed the UK med fleet, wiped out the UK air forces as a threat and destroyed 11 UK divisions in a failed attempt to take africa.

Yes, it also prooved me right, as you said without your support Italy is squat.

Should be interesting to watch the war unfold, certain battle lines look set to unfold. Ill be keeping a close eye out to see who needs to be dealt with first you or SE, One can only but die trying and try try again.... but thats for the other thread

 

[mike8472]

Yes, it also prooved me right, as you said without your support Italy is squat.

Should be interesting to watch the war unfold, certain battle lines look set to unfold. Ill be keeping a close eye out to see who needs to be dealt with first you or SE, One can only but die trying and try try again.... but thats for the other thread

Hehe. Come on you know im the bigger threat. SE is nothing realy.

What is the saying. Boys go to Tokyo, real men go to Berlin. :rofl:

Then again this could just be an attempt to make you commit forces against the stronger enemy and whittle away your forces giving Japan the advanatage it needs.

Then again I could just be talking crap as I normaly do.