[WarInEur] Battle of Britain

[Hansen]

Like the idea of finding a way to encourage the BEF commitment to France
'40, the battle of Britain (BOB to his friends) is another of those
situations that the smart commanders do not engage in because the game has
no point to do so.

As Steve has pointed out, whatever the realities of a cross channel
invasion, the world thought it possible (including at least for a time) the
Germans and the British. BOB was a precursor to such an invasion. As BOB
waxed then waned, it became clear that the invasion was off. As the Germans
invaded Russia in '41, it became clearer that it would never be back on. 

So using political points as an incentive for BOB is really saying that the
air war could have been fought to the point that people would have jumped
onto the Axis side before the invasion would have happened. I don't think we
would have seen that. They would have jumped after the invasion got a
respectable foot hold or succeeded. And from that perspective, we already
have that incentive. 

If the Axis can manage to get beyond the Egyptian border, take Poland,
Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Paris/ France then they are sitting at 62 points.
If they invade England and take London, they need only poke their nose into
French North Africa to get to the magical 75. At that point, even if they do
not win the invasion of England, they achieve the strategic goal of opening
up the Turkish front and threatening Gibraltar. 

So we already have a political point mechanism for pushing the Germans to
try the invasion (and fight the air war as part of making that invasion
work).

But how do we provide an incentive for the BOB to be fought before the
invasion when the German does not really plan to invade (or in other words
to move the game along in historical terms). I would suggest something other
than political points.

I like the idea of equating production points/reinforcement delays to
suppressing ports in England. It even makes a certain amount of sense as the
destruction of the ports would have had such an impact.

The problem is that as is, the game has positive incentives for both sides
to avoid BOB. The allies get to keep their planes for use when they can do
something real in '43 or '44. Likewise, the Germans get to keep their planes
for Russia. And the Germans need every production point they can get for the
invasion of Russia. 

>From my experience, it is better to give up the U-Boat war and build for
Russia. So why would I spend production points (which is what conducting an
air war is doing) to remove production points/delay reinforcements when I
won't do so for the Uboat war. Thus the positive incentive is not likely to
persuade someone like me to go dancing with BOB. 

So what negative incentive can we put in the game to force the BOB? And like
the ideas for adding incentive to the BEF in France, you have to look at the
trade the player is being asked for. With the BEF, some of the proposed
trades were "UK player, give me 10 flips of 8-10 in '40 and in return you
keep the German from building twice as many 4-5 in '44 for double production
points but no personnel points". Not many UK players would see that as a
good deal. Especially since the ten 8-10 in the UK will do quite a bit to
deter an invasion.

The most realistic negative I can come up with would be if the Germans don't
fight a BOB (whether that is getting air superiority or suppressing ports),
then the Russians get a free set up, or they fortify their border. It's not
a deal breaker for the Germans, but it is a powerful incentive.

-John