[WarInEur] RE: total War triggers

[Wardall Clark]

A) Agree that the trigger for Total War production should be tougher if the USSR
declare War on Germany than the other way arround. This needs to be delayed 
to discourage soviet adventurism (something Stalin had political reasons to avoid.)
 
b) Suggest that the ahistorical ban on fortifying within the prewar boundaries be lifted as 
soon as Axis troops enter hexes of the prewar USSR. This never made any sense
c) Agree that the German production multiple should be coupled with the state of
war with the USSR.   This will also go far to preclude the "wait until 1942 and clear out
Africa" gambit. If the Soviets preempt the Multiple should go up sooner than 12/41. Should the Axis fail to invade by 9/41 the increases at the end of the year are delayed. 
 
d)   Agree that either the transition should be graduall, or that it should be controlled 
probablistically. Given that the militia mobilization can only take place all at once the 
Soviet player might perhaps be offered the option of foregoing their accitvation in 
place of relief from Arms center disruption. 
BOB  in Louisville.  
> > > In a message dated 17/12/2007 11:07:59 GMT Standard Time, dlazov at comcast.net > writes:> > If I understand all the arguments correctly then I disagree, the game is > only broke if the Soviets can not go to total war due to the proposed limitation > imposed by the Axis or some type of weird triggers you are all discussing. > To me these all sound pro-German are and are designed to give the Axis player > an unfair advantage and are and abuse of the intent of the original rules.> > We are delicately skating around an awkward issue.> > All of these discussions are based upon an unknown....how the Soviets would > behave economically when not 'under the lash' of iminent slaughter and > annihilation.> > Actual mobilisation was a no holds barred, whatever the cost mentality. But > it is reasonable to assume that under a lesser pressure of events the > Soviets would not stir themselves quite so dramatically, for if they were on the > strategic offensive, they could dctate the terms of what they were putting at > risk.> > The conversion to a war economy was done in a hugely wasteful way, > everything was sacrificed for speed, including a lot of long term planning and > resulting in a great loss of efficiency Putting agricultural production at risk, as > well as long term industrial performance. A similar situation to Churchills > curtailing of Tank design and production and the resulting hiatus, similarly > Hitlers cancellation of many long term projects.> The game does not adress these issues, and w don't glimpse the 'might be's' > that were graven in tablets for the future and cast down and smashed in the > panic and chaos of mobilisation.> > The limited war option is a game device to make the Soviet gamer stop and > think before crossing the rubicon and really destabilising the game, a crude > 'Do you REALLY want to do this???'. It was never envisaged to be balanced, as > being in this situation already put you well outside the historcal simulation, > and placed you in a science fiction what if position anyway.> > In reality Stalin behaved as though he saw only his weaknesses The gamer > sees only his strengths, many of which are based upon the cold calculation of > accurate hindsight. The simulation takes no account of these weaknesses, so > has to make such a crude adjustment.> > Much that influenced Stalin was his position, and personal weaknesses. His > hold n the state was none too secure, faced with a somewhat disaffected > military, and a recalcitrant population. Had stalin gone on the offensive, it > might well be that war production would have operated in leaps and bounds, but > his position, once the casualty returns had become to come in, might have been > untenable.> > For example, a possible alternate outcome to simulate the 'personal' > factor.> > Economically:- The Soviets immediately get full war production> Politically:- If at any time the Soviets lose 4 personnel centers Stalin is > deposed, and Russia takes terms to get out of the war.> The secret of the Eastern front was the incredible resilience of the Soviets > and the Soviet state. Under threat of total annihilation the Soviets refused > to surrender and fought on (what other choice was there for the entire > ruling oligarchy?), completely confounding Hitler's othewise and hitherto > surprisingly accurate, political instincts, that a political collapse would > inevitably follow the blows he struck at the heart of the state.> So we look at various 'anti' Soviet options, to engender any way that may > make the Soviet gamer take pause befor indulging in the one option we are > really 'puntmg into the Dark' over. > > In CWIE 1 we had a similar 'problem' with a free setup Soviet player. > Militarily the logical move was to descend on Rumania at the drop of a hat. Rumania > wuld not survive without German help, and the political and game rules made > it all but impossible for the Germans to defend ploesti, and the loss of this > so early in the game pretty much put an end to it.> > In CWIE 1 houserules were about the only way to protect from this > ubalancing move. Or block free Soviet play. > -|steve|-> -------------- next part --------------> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071217/249aaeb5/attachment-0001.html> > ------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:57:09 -0600> > Steve- Wild Idea time! Okay maybe Stupid Idea time.> > What happens if we link the German Production Multiple to Soviet activities that deny the use of Axis Resource Centers. So if the Soviets DOW, the Germans lose the Soviet RC but the German Production Multiple increases by one. This would sort of balance the increased Soviet production allowed by Limited War by increaseing the German ability to wage a two front war.> > If the Soviets invade Rumania prior to its activation as an Active Axis Ally and capture Polesti then the Production Multiple would incease by three. Again it allows the German player to respond to the increased level of Soviet aggression.> > Linking this way provides some additional checks on alternate Soviet behavior.> > Kent> > In a message dated 17/12/2007 15:56:08 GMT Standard Time, kentsue at cox.net > writes:> > Steve- Wild Idea time! > Funnily enough, the same thought struck me as I saw that phrase...> > Implementing it is the fun bit....> > The trigger being actual occupation of the centers?> The Invasion of Rumania?> > How do we deal with the possible exploits?> > What to do when Ploesti falls in 1944, does this result in a PM jump?> > > Perhaps a better implementation is that if the Soviets declare war on > Germany the German production multiple position on the track is advanced 6 months > for arms points> > The more we look, the more complex this thing can/coould/does get.> > When attacked like this Goebbels would have immediately pulled the homeland > onto a total war footing...> > > For that matter, Ploesti is not really simulated at all. The method used is > merely the crude break\brake? on German production...> > > -|steve|-
_________________________________________________________________
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_122007
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071217/938eb8f3/attachment.html