[WarInEur] Re: Alliance Issues

[sgminfo]

Henry Leroy wrote:
>
>
> In addition, the current version of CW produstion (and US) doesnt 
> allow you to even match the rein track .
> The option is suicide for the CW

Part of the problem is indeed the air stuation....


but, playing devil's advocate forone moment...

Should we be trying to match the reinforcement track?
How accurate is this???

Consideringtheground situation....

I am aware that it is 'suicide'...but changing unit strengths always 
appears to me to be a more realistic approximation of the capacities and 
capabilities of the Wallied fighting formations in 1939-42...

I would be interested in others' considered opinions upon this....


Apart from the Western Desert, and France in 1940, there are not many 
instances where British formations were able to measure their combat 
performance against German formations.

The performances in the the Western desert tend  to make one think that 
the combat values for the units may be about correct.

But, as Mike has intimated before, the CRT sucks in those circumstances.

British performance against the Italian formations is much less  
realistic....

But the lower rating of the British formations gives a better 
performance (well better simulation)against DAK)

Where this breaks down invariably in the game is that Commando Supremo 
in Rome, recognises this weaker force structure and comes up with a plan 
to heavily reinforce DAK which turns the tables on the British to the 
degree that the weaker TOEs of the British serve them up on a plate for 
a first class Axis appetiser.

In this regard we have a problem....

Axis limits in North Africa...

The limits as set out either

1.Don't give DAK a chance
or
2.the taking of Malta releases so many of the constraints upon the 
Germans the the British are then facing NorthAfrica changed into the 
Continental European environment, whereby the British face the entire 
unfettered power of the massed German army....also somewhat unrealistic. 
Something might need to be tweaked a little here?

Changing unit strengths  gives a better limitational feel to the 
British....but still does not solve the issue too comfortably...

I am tempted by the idea of reducing the constructional costs of the 
3-10/3-8 brigades by 25%

Remember with changing unit strengths the 3-10/3-8 force structures do 
not erode....

If we allow the 3-10/3-8 formations to be a seriously better bang for 
our bucks...in the early war years they will be the preferred mix of 
deployment for the British.

Intended result...the British Army in the field tends to more closely 
represent the brigade force structures that tend to be reflected in the 
narratives ofthe time, rather than the stronger , but seriously less 
efficient divisional units.

In the game
The British player is building his army around the divisional basis....
yet this only appearsto be true to adegree in the France 1940 situation, 
thereafter, in the desert, the divisional basis of the formations were 
more titular than real with most of the work degenerating down to the 
brigade level.


What may 'improve the historical constraints for the game might be a 
tinkering with the political constraints.

These  might also work seriously with the Italians...


1.Modify the victory conditions....
 In the board game theItalians are generally operated by a junior 
partner separately, to the Axis command in Berlin.
In the computer game, moving more in thisdirection may be desirable...at 
present it is very much only a 3 player game.

Victory conditions...

Italy  wins WW2 (and hence the Axis) if the Italians take Cairo OR  
ATHENS , or the _Italians_ are in possession of Tripoli after 1943.

If Italy 'wins', the game halts, and the Italian player alone chalks up 
'his' victory, but it counts as an Axis victory.

For these 'Italian' victories... the force structures on the Southern 
front MUST be predomiantly Italian Combat points in the theater.

I.E. such and such a ratio of Italian combat points to German Combat 
points on the Southern front.

IF the germans push the ratio higher by committing greater forces to the 
Southern front, these victory objectives start to vanish progrssively.

For example...

Committing German forces above the levels of DAK mean that the Italians 
win if CAIRO AND BAGHDAD are taken...

Italian surrender...

These standard conditions for surrender only apply if the Germans have 
committed a greater proportion of strength to the southern front.


i.e.Il Duce's political standing was paramount to him and to a certain 
degree, Berlin.

Over commit to the Southern front, andthe axis player turns Il Dice into 
a paper tiger, visibly a  puppet for all to see, and incidentally, 
undermining his support with the Italian people, and their support for 
the war.


Such a 'political' tinkering with the southern front  could easily be 
done in the board game without incurring additional production costs and 
redesign of the countersheets etc so makes a reasonable and viable  
retro-fit, without needing to buy an upgrade kit for game sets out there...

The political constraints thus created are then perhaps a 'better' fit 
for the realities on the ground.

The details need to be refined...

But they promise perhaps a better approximation in place of the current 
limitations upon the German forces in North Africa...

For example, putting a German Army Group in North Africa after a taking 
of Malta, might make military sense, but might make political suicide 
for a Mussolini portraying himself as the 'New Caesar' forging a  'Pax 
Italia' in the Mediterranean world.

Seen too much as a German puppet, his domestic position might become 
untenable.

with a threatened Italian collapse and seeking of terms at the earliest 
opportunity on a lesser reverse in theater.....comes a big political 
points hit--representing Il Duce's fall from office, and the Italians 
perhaps changing sides?

i.e. The more you supportthe Italians militarily, the Weaker they become 
politically...


-|steve|-