People, these changes were designed as a group for balance purposes.How can you
now cherry pick the ones you like and discard the others?THis is unrealistic.If
you don't like something, you have to still propose some other change to at
least try and keep this balance.No wonder Bruce complains about herding us
cats.Here we have someone saying overruns in summer 41 are nothing, but didn't
Bruce the designer just say these should not readily occur?Think I will go play
tennis too!__________________
  To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
From: dchanson45@...
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:56:48 -0700
Subject: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals


























       I agree with 1, 5 and 6.



2 is too much change with too much unintended effect around the map outside
Russia.  I understand Bruce's desire to 'speed up' the Russian setup for
Barbarossa. But playing Russia I tend to not worry about overuns. I just accept
that they will happen, and that all of the Russian at-start Army will die in
either Summer or Fall.  Instead I try to set up Russia so as to cause maximum
risk and pain to the attacking Germans, not so much to prevent overruns. 
Russian doom is a design feature, and we should just publicize that as given, to
reassure players that they needn't obsess about defending the indefensible.



Could go with 3 if Bruce thinks necessary.  But I recommend against it.
Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach Osten; seems
unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.

Also, if such a change is made then it just cut the ground from under an Axis
strategy in one of my current games. Axis aimed for and got a CTL increase in
1941. They want to use the newly capable Italian armor and infantry in Russia.
(Barbarossa attack just kicked off, with significant Italian aid: 2o5 and five
AAF.) Depriving the Axis of Italian services on one of the war's most important
fronts seems to reduce the attraction to the Axis of the CTL research project.



As for 4, we already gravely weakened, and created disincentive for, airdrops
onto defended hexes without a ground attack. The +1 DM effectively reduces most
of such attacks to 1:1s anyway. No need to further legislate such high-risk
options out of existence.



Dave Hanson



From: Eric Thobaben <ethobaben@...>

To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:54 AM

Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals





My current thoughts in response to Bruce's proposal:



1. Restrict production increments by year (agree).



2. Overruns only by armor (agree).



3. Prohibit Italian units on the eastern front (greater simplification).



4. Airborne may only airdrop on vacant hexes or defended hexes in

conjunction with a ground attack (agree).



5. Russia must mobilize 1 AAF per mobilization (agree).



6. Heavy armor research is abolished (agree). Russia and Germany may

generate 5o6s at any time (agree).



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Comments (original post heavily edited):

> PRODUCTION RESTRICTIONS:
>
> 42.16  PRODUCTION RESTRICTIONS:
> ...
> B. LIMITS ON PRODUCTION RESULTS LIMITED BY YEAR:
> ...
> o      Air transport production.

Unless I am confused, it is meaningless to restrict the air transport.  It is
not possible (or so unlikely as to be impossible) to product 2 AT in 1940 or
1941, or 3 in 1942.  I guess it doesn't hurt for consistency, but it doesn't
actually restrict anything.

I have no problem with this change.  I don't see it as a major change, and it
only affects the "fringe" conditions.  Yes, I have produced 2 increments of
military units in 1941 as Russia, but I won't be horribly hurt if I can't any
more.


> OVERRUNS:

I like changing overruns to be limited to two units.  I agree that it will
reduce a bunch of time tinkering with the Russian defense figuring out where
exactly Germany can air transport an airborne in order to get an overrun on a 6
factors.

I think it is just as easy to write it up as two units (specialized units can be
one of the two units); just remove the exception in 13.52.

The reason I think this is better is, of course, based on my game and my game
play.  :)  I have done overruns with a a British 2o5, 3x4, and 1 AAF (6:1) or a
British 4o5, 3x4, and 5 AAF (12:2).  They are done in areas where there is no
second armor unit.  I agree that in France and Russia two armor are always
available, but that isn't the case in North Africa.

> HEAVY ARMOR

I like this change, although stylistically I feel that Russia should
produce/mobilize their 4o5 armor units before they can produce/mobilize their
5o6 armor units.

I doubt it is a play balance issue, but it does feel wrong for Russia to
mobilize a 5o6 armor unit with their first mobilization even before any 4o5
armor has been rolled out.

So I would probably suggest something like:

> 42.333  ARMOR:
>
> A. GERMANY: Germany may produce 5-6 armor units once it is at war
> with Russia.
> ...
> G. RUSSIA: Russia may mobilize or produce 4-5 armor units at any
> time and and 5-6 armor units once it is at war with Germany.

> AIRDROPS:

I am not sure any change is necessary here either.  Having said that, I have no
problems with:

> 15.32  POSITIVE DMs:  Units receive a positive DM (their defensive
> strength is increased) as follows:
> ...
> H. Units defending against airdrops, without being attacked by other
> enemy ground units:
> ...
> ·      Armor and specialized units receive a +2 DM.

I don't think I have ever seen a case in any of my games where this would have
come into play, so it is clearly (to me anyway) a change with very limited
scope.


> ITALIANS IN RUSSIA AND RUSSIAN MOBILIZATIONS:

> These go together, because deleting the Italians from the equation
> as an ahistorical absurdity that has been retained purely for play
> balance requires a (realistic) counter balance.

This is the change that is the most contentious to me.  I understand the problem
(both historically and from game play) but I don't like any of the solutions
presented.

> I don't agree with Eric's suggestion that Italian units be
> prohibited from the eastern front altogether for one reason - there
> were Italians there.

But from a game perspective, if the Italians can't attack and they suck at
defense, why would the Axis player send them?  I agree with Eric; if you are
effectively banning them by making them worthless why not just make it explicit.

From my experience, if the Axis send all of their air to Russia, then the WAs
should be taking advantage of it, even in 1941.  I don't see this as a huge
problem.  What I see much more often is that the Axis put 5 German AAF in the
Med. and 5 Italian AAF in Russia because it gives more flexibility to the Axis.

The Italian armor in Russia don't bother me. The Italian infantry in Russia
don't bother me.  They are ahistorically more active than they should be, but
that is also true in the Med.  We don't have built into the game an "Italian
wimp factor" because we all know we can be a better dictator than Mussolini. 
Italian forces in Russia being more active than the were historically is just an
aspect of that.

Net, I keep coming back to proposing no change.  None of the ones presented seem
right, and this may be an area where we just have to accept what we have.

{Russia mobilizing air}

> ·      Russia must mobilize at least one AAF each mobilization.

I missed where this came from.  What is the purpose of this change?

Randy

Russia must mobilize at least one AAF each mobilization.

I missed where this came from.  What is the purpose of this change?       PLAY
BALANCE!!!!!!!! THis equates to one less Russian 3-3 infantry per mobolization,
doesn't it?

  To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
From: randy.scheers@...
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:07:08 +0000
Subject: [aworldatwar] Re: Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals (complete)




























Comments (original post heavily edited):



> PRODUCTION RESTRICTIONS:

>

> 42.16  PRODUCTION RESTRICTIONS:

> ...

> B. LIMITS ON PRODUCTION RESULTS LIMITED BY YEAR:

> ...

> o      Air transport production.



Unless I am confused, it is meaningless to restrict the air transport.  It is
not possible (or so unlikely as to be impossible) to product 2 AT in 1940 or
1941, or 3 in 1942.  I guess it doesn't hurt for consistency, but it doesn't
actually restrict anything.



I have no problem with this change.  I don't see it as a major change, and it
only affects the "fringe" conditions.  Yes, I have produced 2 increments of
military units in 1941 as Russia, but I won't be horribly hurt if I can't any
more.



> OVERRUNS:



I like changing overruns to be limited to two units.  I agree that it will
reduce a bunch of time tinkering with the Russian defense figuring out where
exactly Germany can air transport an airborne in order to get an overrun on a 6
factors.



I think it is just as easy to write it up as two units (specialized units can be
one of the two units); just remove the exception in 13.52.



The reason I think this is better is, of course, based on my game and my game
play.  :)  I have done overruns with a a British 2o5, 3x4, and 1 AAF (6:1) or a
British 4o5, 3x4, and 5 AAF (12:2).  They are done in areas where there is no
second armor unit.  I agree that in France and Russia two armor are always
available, but that isn't the case in North Africa.



> HEAVY ARMOR



I like this change, although stylistically I feel that Russia should
produce/mobilize their 4o5 armor units before they can produce/mobilize their
5o6 armor units.



I doubt it is a play balance issue, but it does feel wrong for Russia to
mobilize a 5o6 armor unit with their first mobilization even before any 4o5
armor has been rolled out.



So I would probably suggest something like:



> 42.333  ARMOR:

>

> A. GERMANY: Germany may produce 5-6 armor units once it is at war

> with Russia.

> ...

> G. RUSSIA: Russia may mobilize or produce 4-5 armor units at any

> time and and 5-6 armor units once it is at war with Germany.



> AIRDROPS:



I am not sure any change is necessary here either.  Having said that, I have no
problems with:



> 15.32  POSITIVE DMs:  Units receive a positive DM (their defensive

> strength is increased) as follows:

> ...

> H. Units defending against airdrops, without being attacked by other

> enemy ground units:

> ...

> ·      Armor and specialized units receive a +2 DM.



I don't think I have ever seen a case in any of my games where this would have
come into play, so it is clearly (to me anyway) a change with very limited
scope.



> ITALIANS IN RUSSIA AND RUSSIAN MOBILIZATIONS:



> These go together, because deleting the Italians from the equation

> as an ahistorical absurdity that has been retained purely for play

> balance requires a (realistic) counter balance.



This is the change that is the most contentious to me.  I understand the problem
(both historically and from game play) but I don't like any of the solutions
presented.



> I don't agree with Eric's suggestion that Italian units be

> prohibited from the eastern front altogether for one reason - there

> were Italians there.



But from a game perspective, if the Italians can't attack and they suck at
defense, why would the Axis player send them?  I agree with Eric; if you are
effectively banning them by making them worthless why not just make it explicit.



From my experience, if the Axis send all of their air to Russia, then the WAs
should be taking advantage of it, even in 1941.  I don't see this as a huge
problem.  What I see much more often is that the Axis put 5 German AAF in the
Med. and 5 Italian AAF in Russia because it gives more flexibility to the Axis.



The Italian armor in Russia don't bother me. The Italian infantry in Russia
don't bother me.  They are ahistorically more active than they should be, but
that is also true in the Med.  We don't have built into the game an "Italian
wimp factor" because we all know we can be a better dictator than Mussolini. 
Italian forces in Russia being more active than the were historically is just an
aspect of that.



Net, I keep coming back to proposing no change.  None of the ones presented seem
right, and this may be an area where we just have to accept what we have.



{Russia mobilizing air}



> ·      Russia must mobilize at least one AAF each mobilization.



I missed where this came from.  What is the purpose of this change?



Randy


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I do as well.  last round is always air , second to last is more dependent on
the board.  sometimes its 2 5o6 instead of air.



________________________________
From: Elihu Feustel <daringly@...>
To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 1:32 PM
Subject: [aworldatwar] Re: Status report on changes


 
I almost always mobilize air with Russia -- no infantry on the last 2 mobs.

--- In aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com, donmoody@... wrote:

> B) I thought the 'Russia must mobilize air' to be an improvement
> B2) *IF* in many games, Russian mobilizations were more 'branch balanced',
> I probably would not care about this. But it isn't some games, it is
> almost every game that sees Russia mobilize no air units.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From the new intercept chart:
+1 die: Each submarine that is based or is on patrol within three hexes
of the interception hex.

A sub in Malta is used to intercept supply, and is inverted. Does the inverted
sub assist interceptions of NRs later, now that it is inverted?

--- In aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Harper" <bruce54321@...> wrote:
>

I prefer to respond to Bruce's latest comprehensive package:


> So perhaps where we stand right now is:
>
> 1. Overruns by armor only - yes.

With respect to Randy, limiting overruns to two units creates an exception I
have to remember -- Specialized units can always overstack but now add "Except
when conducting
overruns."

Plus what could you overrun with a 4-6 and a 1m3?  That's only 5 factors.  Yes,
you get to 6 factors with a 5o6 and a 1m3, but is it really worth having this
exception just to make single 1-3's and replacements that are under some DM
reduction vulnerable to overruns on those rare occasions you want to use an
airborne unit to do that sometime after Fall 1941?  But when would you see an
isolated or minor country 1-3 in the front line that you can't get to with 2
armor units?  The airborne can't do exploitation movement anyway (only airdrop).

So I think the armor unit only restriction is fine.


> 2. Heavy armor doesn't require research, but Germany must be at war with
Russia (so no overruns against 5-defense in Barbarossa).

I think one part of Don's concern is that every most Axis attacks against Russia
would  produce the 5o6 in 1941.  Personally I would see some infantry being more
important in 'typical' games, but the concern would be in games where the Allies
are knocked down quite a ways and Germany doesn't have to worry about anything
in the west in 1942.  So the heavy armor would be common in 'extreme' attacks
(as it is now) but without the downside of costing RP's for the research
project.

I think the other issue is that we are saying Germany produces heavy tanks in
response to the Russian heavy tanks, but we will see the German 5o6 on the board
before the Russian 5o6 (or even **4o5**) more often than not.  I hardly think
Russia producing a 5o6 in Spring 41 will be typical play, and any Russian tank
mobilized in Fa40 can't be used on the board before Spring 42 (built in Wi41 --
*if* Russia has the BRPs, Su42 built in Spring would be more typical.).

I suppose you can justify that apparent anomaly by saying the Germans are
reacting to 'prototypes' (the public information provided in the game allows the
players to see the mobilized units), but I would be OK with allowing Germany to
produce 5o6 armor beginning in 1942.  Without the production increment limit,
they could save RPs in military production to get  3 increments in 1942 with 5
BRPs produced earlier and carried forward, for 2 heavy tanks useable in Su42
(which arguably is still earlier than the 'historical' result, but IMO at an
appropriate cost in RPs not activated in earlier years.)


> 3. Armor has a +2 DM against airdrops.

This is better than the outright prohibition, because it eliminates the effect
of this change on Sea Lion, which is already precarious enough.


> 4. No Russian firestorms and a second strategic bomber result needed to
bombing with more than 5 strategic bombers.

A reluctant OK to this.  The possibility of the Axis buying a [+5] modifier in
GS means we still need some restriction here.


> 5. Russia may only produce one air and military increment each year until at
war with Russia; no restriction on where these units can go.
> 6. No other changes to production.

Russia being neutral (no war yet against other major powers) is sufficient
reason for the limit.  I presume we are still eliminating deployment
restrictions on the produced units? (i.e. no need to restrict half the units to
Leningrad or Moscow).

WRT Germany, I disagree with Randy that Germany cannot make 3 ATR by 1941.  Its
expensive, but a 1939 BT allows a guaranteed second BT in 1941.  Produce 1 ATR
in 1940, and the 3 BRPs in 1941 allow Germany to produce 2 ATR that year: 
1RP=2BT for the first, 2RP=2BT for the second.  So there is approximately a 25%
chance (= getting a BT with 3 rps in 1939) that a German player who wants 3 ATR
by 1941 will be able to get them.


> 7. No change to Italians in Russia.

I think people may be forgetting the natural limit of 7 BRPs useable on
offensives without triggering a USAT increase.  However, I was fine with the
proposed restrictions (no Italian offensive operations) plus letting Germany
place a second airbase in the movement phase.  For those who really want to play
an alternative war with more competent Italy, maybe the restriction could be
linked to CTL (i.e. a CTL of 2 might allow Italy to attack on the eastern front,
because the Axis have decided to actually equip the Italians properly.) Then
maybe we could say Germany only gets to place 2 airbases during the surprise
turn.


> 8. No change to Russian mobilizations.

I thought the requirement to mobilize an AAF was generally a good idea.  We
don't completely address the number of 3-3s Russia has available by Spring 41
without this, and it is all the more needed with the change to overruns.  I am
assuming all 3 brps for the AAF must come from mobilization, no combining extra
production with 1 BRP to wind up with more infantry.


> 9. Possibly allowing Russia to build beyond its UCL, at the expense of its BRP
base (one-third of its UCL).
>

Possibly.  It sounds like a fast way to start a death spiral to me ...

Hope you enjoyed playing tennis.

Ed

I don't think this is right.

Two airborne and six AAF = 8.  They cannot airdrop on a 3o5 under the
current rules.

Three airborne and nine AAF = 12.  That is 12:9 = 1:1 under the current
rules.  Adding a 1x3 makes it 12:12 under the current rules, so the attack
is still legal and, if it eliminates the defending units (the point of a
clearing attack), effective too (game winning in some situations).

That is why some are suggesting making such an attack illegal, period, and I
am suggestion giving the armor a +2 DM, so the defense is 12 without the 1x3
and 16 (stopping the attack) with the 1x3.

Subtle, but important given what we are trying to outlaw.

----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Wilson
To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [aworldatwar] Re: Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals



Or stack the 3o5 with a 1-3 and suddenly no 1:1

Greg

We just need two more for doubles...

Many players tend to be too narrow in their thinking - of course the
proposal is intended to be a unified whole.

Overruns are an example.  Yes, the Russian army will be largely destroyed in
Summer 1941 - the surprise and garrison rules inevitably lead to this.  The
difference between a normal attack and a good attack might be eliminating an
extra 10 or 20 BRPs of units, or gaining an extra few hexes or a key city
for use as an airbase.

But an overun in the wrong place can lead to a complete Russian collapse (I
know of inexperienced Russian players who have lost Moscow in Summer 1941)
and (more importantly) preventing them or allowing them when they aren't
fatal consumes an extra hour or two of playing time (I am not exaggerating).

Is that hour or two well spent when: a) it is possible to set up Russia so
that no effective overruns occur; and b) the game is just fine without them?

I say "no", but people gripe at the thought of saving those two hours.  That
is NOT what the game is supposed to be all about.

----- Original Message -----
From: "M MISKOW" <miskow@...>
To: <aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 11:06 AM
Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals


>
> People, these changes were designed as a group for balance purposes.How
> can you now cherry pick the ones you like and discard the others?THis is
> unrealistic.If you don't like something, you have to still propose some
> other change to at least try and keep this balance.No wonder Bruce
> complains about herding us cats.Here we have someone saying overruns in
> summer 41 are nothing, but didn't Bruce the designer just say these should
> not readily occur?Think I will go play tennis too!__________________
> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
> From: dchanson45@...
> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:56:48 -0700
> Subject: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      I agree with 1, 5 and 6.
>
>
>
> 2 is too much change with too much unintended effect around the map
> outside Russia.  I understand Bruce's desire to 'speed up' the Russian
> setup for Barbarossa. But playing Russia I tend to not worry about
> overuns. I just accept that they will happen, and that all of the Russian
> at-start Army will die in either Summer or Fall.  Instead I try to set up
> Russia so as to cause maximum risk and pain to the attacking Germans, not
> so much to prevent overruns.  Russian doom is a design feature, and we
> should just publicize that as given, to reassure players that they needn't
> obsess about defending the indefensible.
>
>
>
> Could go with 3 if Bruce thinks necessary.  But I recommend against it.
> Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach Osten; seems
> unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.
>
> Also, if such a change is made then it just cut the ground from under an
> Axis strategy in one of my current games. Axis aimed for and got a CTL
> increase in 1941. They want to use the newly capable Italian armor and
> infantry in Russia. (Barbarossa attack just kicked off, with significant
> Italian aid: 2o5 and five AAF.) Depriving the Axis of Italian services on
> one of the war's most important fronts seems to reduce the attraction to
> the Axis of the CTL research project.
>
>
>
> As for 4, we already gravely weakened, and created disincentive for,
> airdrops onto defended hexes without a ground attack. The +1 DM
> effectively reduces most of such attacks to 1:1s anyway. No need to
> further legislate such high-risk options out of existence.
>
>
>
> Dave Hanson
>
>
>
> From: Eric Thobaben <ethobaben@...>
>
> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:54 AM
>
> Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals
>
>
>
>
>
> My current thoughts in response to Bruce's proposal:
>
>
>
> 1. Restrict production increments by year (agree).
>
>
>
> 2. Overruns only by armor (agree).
>
>
>
> 3. Prohibit Italian units on the eastern front (greater simplification).
>
>
>
> 4. Airborne may only airdrop on vacant hexes or defended hexes in
>
> conjunction with a ground attack (agree).
>
>
>
> 5. Russia must mobilize 1 AAF per mobilization (agree).
>
>
>
> 6. Heavy armor research is abolished (agree). Russia and Germany may
>
> generate 5o6s at any time (agree).
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

100% agree. Tired of taking hours to setup best russian defence (PBEM). BTW,
making the DM +2 for armour vs airdrops was an idea I was going to send you
yesterday just before you proposed it, so obviously I like it.Simple and makes
sense. When would anyone be crazy enough to land on a fully functional armour
unit> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
From: bruce54321@...
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:42:40 -0700
Subject: Re: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals


























       We just need two more for doubles...



Many players tend to be too narrow in their thinking - of course the

proposal is intended to be a unified whole.



Overruns are an example.  Yes, the Russian army will be largely destroyed in

Summer 1941 - the surprise and garrison rules inevitably lead to this.  The

difference between a normal attack and a good attack might be eliminating an

extra 10 or 20 BRPs of units, or gaining an extra few hexes or a key city

for use as an airbase.



But an overun in the wrong place can lead to a complete Russian collapse (I

know of inexperienced Russian players who have lost Moscow in Summer 1941)

and (more importantly) preventing them or allowing them when they aren't

fatal consumes an extra hour or two of playing time (I am not exaggerating).



Is that hour or two well spent when: a) it is possible to set up Russia so

that no effective overruns occur; and b) the game is just fine without them?



I say "no", but people gripe at the thought of saving those two hours.  That

is NOT what the game is supposed to be all about.



----- Original Message -----

From: "M MISKOW" <miskow@...>

To: <aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 11:06 AM

Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals



>

> People, these changes were designed as a group for balance purposes.How

> can you now cherry pick the ones you like and discard the others?THis is

> unrealistic.If you don't like something, you have to still propose some

> other change to at least try and keep this balance.No wonder Bruce

> complains about herding us cats.Here we have someone saying overruns in

> summer 41 are nothing, but didn't Bruce the designer just say these should

> not readily occur?Think I will go play tennis too!__________________

> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com

> From: dchanson45@...

> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:56:48 -0700

> Subject: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>      I agree with 1, 5 and 6.

>

>

>

> 2 is too much change with too much unintended effect around the map

> outside Russia.  I understand Bruce's desire to 'speed up' the Russian

> setup for Barbarossa. But playing Russia I tend to not worry about

> overuns. I just accept that they will happen, and that all of the Russian

> at-start Army will die in either Summer or Fall.  Instead I try to set up

> Russia so as to cause maximum risk and pain to the attacking Germans, not

> so much to prevent overruns.  Russian doom is a design feature, and we

> should just publicize that as given, to reassure players that they needn't

> obsess about defending the indefensible.

>

>

>

> Could go with 3 if Bruce thinks necessary.  But I recommend against it.

> Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach Osten; seems

> unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.

>

> Also, if such a change is made then it just cut the ground from under an

> Axis strategy in one of my current games. Axis aimed for and got a CTL

> increase in 1941. They want to use the newly capable Italian armor and

> infantry in Russia. (Barbarossa attack just kicked off, with significant

> Italian aid: 2o5 and five AAF.) Depriving the Axis of Italian services on

> one of the war's most important fronts seems to reduce the attraction to

> the Axis of the CTL research project.

>

>

>

> As for 4, we already gravely weakened, and created disincentive for,

> airdrops onto defended hexes without a ground attack. The +1 DM

> effectively reduces most of such attacks to 1:1s anyway. No need to

> further legislate such high-risk options out of existence.

>

>

>

> Dave Hanson

>

>

>

> From: Eric Thobaben <ethobaben@...>

>

> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com

>

> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:54 AM

>

> Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals

>

>

>

>

>

> My current thoughts in response to Bruce's proposal:

>

>

>

> 1. Restrict production increments by year (agree).

>

>

>

> 2. Overruns only by armor (agree).

>

>

>

> 3. Prohibit Italian units on the eastern front (greater simplification).

>

>

>

> 4. Airborne may only airdrop on vacant hexes or defended hexes in

>

> conjunction with a ground attack (agree).

>

>

>

> 5. Russia must mobilize 1 AAF per mobilization (agree).

>

>

>

> 6. Heavy armor research is abolished (agree). Russia and Germany may

>

> generate 5o6s at any time (agree).

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Two comments: 1) I agree that german heavy armour in 41 should not be possible.
In this regard, I do not think that one should be able to activate 5 brps of
production and defer it all to next turn.If you activate it, you need to spend
something that year. 2) Italian wimp factor. I believe we now do have such a
thing (lower DMs outside Italy for one).To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
From: randy.scheers@...
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:07:08 +0000
Subject: [aworldatwar] Re: Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals (complete)




























Comments (original post heavily edited):



> PRODUCTION RESTRICTIONS:

>

> 42.16  PRODUCTION RESTRICTIONS:

> ...

> B. LIMITS ON PRODUCTION RESULTS LIMITED BY YEAR:

> ...

> o      Air transport production.



Unless I am confused, it is meaningless to restrict the air transport.  It is
not possible (or so unlikely as to be impossible) to product 2 AT in 1940 or
1941, or 3 in 1942.  I guess it doesn't hurt for consistency, but it doesn't
actually restrict anything.



I have no problem with this change.  I don't see it as a major change, and it
only affects the "fringe" conditions.  Yes, I have produced 2 increments of
military units in 1941 as Russia, but I won't be horribly hurt if I can't any
more.



> OVERRUNS:



I like changing overruns to be limited to two units.  I agree that it will
reduce a bunch of time tinkering with the Russian defense figuring out where
exactly Germany can air transport an airborne in order to get an overrun on a 6
factors.



I think it is just as easy to write it up as two units (specialized units can be
one of the two units); just remove the exception in 13.52.



The reason I think this is better is, of course, based on my game and my game
play.  :)  I have done overruns with a a British 2o5, 3x4, and 1 AAF (6:1) or a
British 4o5, 3x4, and 5 AAF (12:2).  They are done in areas where there is no
second armor unit.  I agree that in France and Russia two armor are always
available, but that isn't the case in North Africa.



> HEAVY ARMOR



I like this change, although stylistically I feel that Russia should
produce/mobilize their 4o5 armor units before they can produce/mobilize their
5o6 armor units.



I doubt it is a play balance issue, but it does feel wrong for Russia to
mobilize a 5o6 armor unit with their first mobilization even before any 4o5
armor has been rolled out.



So I would probably suggest something like:



> 42.333  ARMOR:

>

> A. GERMANY: Germany may produce 5-6 armor units once it is at war

> with Russia.

> ...

> G. RUSSIA: Russia may mobilize or produce 4-5 armor units at any

> time and and 5-6 armor units once it is at war with Germany.



> AIRDROPS:



I am not sure any change is necessary here either.  Having said that, I have no
problems with:



> 15.32  POSITIVE DMs:  Units receive a positive DM (their defensive

> strength is increased) as follows:

> ...

> H. Units defending against airdrops, without being attacked by other

> enemy ground units:

> ...

> ·      Armor and specialized units receive a +2 DM.



I don't think I have ever seen a case in any of my games where this would have
come into play, so it is clearly (to me anyway) a change with very limited
scope.



> ITALIANS IN RUSSIA AND RUSSIAN MOBILIZATIONS:



> These go together, because deleting the Italians from the equation

> as an ahistorical absurdity that has been retained purely for play

> balance requires a (realistic) counter balance.



This is the change that is the most contentious to me.  I understand the problem
(both historically and from game play) but I don't like any of the solutions
presented.



> I don't agree with Eric's suggestion that Italian units be

> prohibited from the eastern front altogether for one reason - there

> were Italians there.



But from a game perspective, if the Italians can't attack and they suck at
defense, why would the Axis player send them?  I agree with Eric; if you are
effectively banning them by making them worthless why not just make it explicit.



From my experience, if the Axis send all of their air to Russia, then the WAs
should be taking advantage of it, even in 1941.  I don't see this as a huge
problem.  What I see much more often is that the Axis put 5 German AAF in the
Med. and 5 Italian AAF in Russia because it gives more flexibility to the Axis.



The Italian armor in Russia don't bother me. The Italian infantry in Russia
don't bother me.  They are ahistorically more active than they should be, but
that is also true in the Med.  We don't have built into the game an "Italian
wimp factor" because we all know we can be a better dictator than Mussolini. 
Italian forces in Russia being more active than the were historically is just an
aspect of that.



Net, I keep coming back to proposing no change.  None of the ones presented seem
right, and this may be an area where we just have to accept what we have.



{Russia mobilizing air}



> ·      Russia must mobilize at least one AAF each mobilization.



I missed where this came from.  What is the purpose of this change?



Randy


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

September 1944, I believe...

----- Original Message -----
From: "M MISKOW" <miskow@...>
To: <aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals


>
> 100% agree. Tired of taking hours to setup best russian defence (PBEM).
> BTW, making the DM +2 for armour vs airdrops was an idea I was going to
> send you yesterday just before you proposed it, so obviously I like
> it.Simple and makes sense. When would anyone be crazy enough to land on a
> fully functional armour unit> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
> From: bruce54321@...
> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:42:40 -0700
> Subject: Re: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      We just need two more for doubles...
>
>
>
> Many players tend to be too narrow in their thinking - of course the
>
> proposal is intended to be a unified whole.
>
>
>
> Overruns are an example.  Yes, the Russian army will be largely destroyed
> in
>
> Summer 1941 - the surprise and garrison rules inevitably lead to this.
> The
>
> difference between a normal attack and a good attack might be eliminating
> an
>
> extra 10 or 20 BRPs of units, or gaining an extra few hexes or a key city
>
> for use as an airbase.
>
>
>
> But an overun in the wrong place can lead to a complete Russian collapse
> (I
>
> know of inexperienced Russian players who have lost Moscow in Summer 1941)
>
> and (more importantly) preventing them or allowing them when they aren't
>
> fatal consumes an extra hour or two of playing time (I am not
> exaggerating).
>
>
>
> Is that hour or two well spent when: a) it is possible to set up Russia so
>
> that no effective overruns occur; and b) the game is just fine without
> them?
>
>
>
> I say "no", but people gripe at the thought of saving those two hours.
> That
>
> is NOT what the game is supposed to be all about.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "M MISKOW" <miskow@...>
>
> To: <aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com>
>
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 11:06 AM
>
> Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals
>
>
>
>>
>
>> People, these changes were designed as a group for balance purposes.How
>
>> can you now cherry pick the ones you like and discard the others?THis is
>
>> unrealistic.If you don't like something, you have to still propose some
>
>> other change to at least try and keep this balance.No wonder Bruce
>
>> complains about herding us cats.Here we have someone saying overruns in
>
>> summer 41 are nothing, but didn't Bruce the designer just say these
>> should
>
>> not readily occur?Think I will go play tennis too!__________________
>
>> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
>
>> From: dchanson45@...
>
>> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:56:48 -0700
>
>> Subject: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>      I agree with 1, 5 and 6.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> 2 is too much change with too much unintended effect around the map
>
>> outside Russia.  I understand Bruce's desire to 'speed up' the Russian
>
>> setup for Barbarossa. But playing Russia I tend to not worry about
>
>> overuns. I just accept that they will happen, and that all of the Russian
>
>> at-start Army will die in either Summer or Fall.  Instead I try to set up
>
>> Russia so as to cause maximum risk and pain to the attacking Germans, not
>
>> so much to prevent overruns.  Russian doom is a design feature, and we
>
>> should just publicize that as given, to reassure players that they
>> needn't
>
>> obsess about defending the indefensible.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Could go with 3 if Bruce thinks necessary.  But I recommend against it.
>
>> Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach Osten; seems
>
>> unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.
>
>>
>
>> Also, if such a change is made then it just cut the ground from under an
>
>> Axis strategy in one of my current games. Axis aimed for and got a CTL
>
>> increase in 1941. They want to use the newly capable Italian armor and
>
>> infantry in Russia. (Barbarossa attack just kicked off, with significant
>
>> Italian aid: 2o5 and five AAF.) Depriving the Axis of Italian services on
>
>> one of the war's most important fronts seems to reduce the attraction to
>
>> the Axis of the CTL research project.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> As for 4, we already gravely weakened, and created disincentive for,
>
>> airdrops onto defended hexes without a ground attack. The +1 DM
>
>> effectively reduces most of such attacks to 1:1s anyway. No need to
>
>> further legislate such high-risk options out of existence.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Dave Hanson
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> From: Eric Thobaben <ethobaben@...>
>
>>
>
>> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
>
>>
>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:54 AM
>
>>
>
>> Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> My current thoughts in response to Bruce's proposal:
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> 1. Restrict production increments by year (agree).
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> 2. Overruns only by armor (agree).
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> 3. Prohibit Italian units on the eastern front (greater simplification).
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> 4. Airborne may only airdrop on vacant hexes or defended hexes in
>
>>
>
>> conjunction with a ground attack (agree).
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> 5. Russia must mobilize 1 AAF per mobilization (agree).
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> 6. Heavy armor research is abolished (agree). Russia and Germany may
>
>>
>
>> generate 5o6s at any time (agree).
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> ------------------------------------
>
>>
>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Not on purpose I understand, but it sure showed the folly of it. And it would
have ended faster if they had not been defending mostly in a city, the bain of
armour.
  To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
From: bruce54321@...
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:17:03 -0700
Subject: Re: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals


























       September 1944, I believe...



----- Original Message -----

From: "M MISKOW" <miskow@...>

To: <aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 1:58 PM

Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals



>

> 100% agree. Tired of taking hours to setup best russian defence (PBEM).

> BTW, making the DM +2 for armour vs airdrops was an idea I was going to

> send you yesterday just before you proposed it, so obviously I like

> it.Simple and makes sense. When would anyone be crazy enough to land on a

> fully functional armour unit> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com

> From: bruce54321@...

> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:42:40 -0700

> Subject: Re: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>      We just need two more for doubles...

>

>

>

> Many players tend to be too narrow in their thinking - of course the

>

> proposal is intended to be a unified whole.

>

>

>

> Overruns are an example.  Yes, the Russian army will be largely destroyed

> in

>

> Summer 1941 - the surprise and garrison rules inevitably lead to this.

> The

>

> difference between a normal attack and a good attack might be eliminating

> an

>

> extra 10 or 20 BRPs of units, or gaining an extra few hexes or a key city

>

> for use as an airbase.

>

>

>

> But an overun in the wrong place can lead to a complete Russian collapse

> (I

>

> know of inexperienced Russian players who have lost Moscow in Summer 1941)

>

> and (more importantly) preventing them or allowing them when they aren't

>

> fatal consumes an extra hour or two of playing time (I am not

> exaggerating).

>

>

>

> Is that hour or two well spent when: a) it is possible to set up Russia so

>

> that no effective overruns occur; and b) the game is just fine without

> them?

>

>

>

> I say "no", but people gripe at the thought of saving those two hours.

> That

>

> is NOT what the game is supposed to be all about.

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

>

> From: "M MISKOW" <miskow@...>

>

> To: <aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com>

>

> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 11:06 AM

>

> Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals

>

>

>

>>

>

>> People, these changes were designed as a group for balance purposes.How

>

>> can you now cherry pick the ones you like and discard the others?THis is

>

>> unrealistic.If you don't like something, you have to still propose some

>

>> other change to at least try and keep this balance.No wonder Bruce

>

>> complains about herding us cats.Here we have someone saying overruns in

>

>> summer 41 are nothing, but didn't Bruce the designer just say these

>> should

>

>> not readily occur?Think I will go play tennis too!__________________

>

>> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com

>

>> From: dchanson45@...

>

>> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:56:48 -0700

>

>> Subject: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>      I agree with 1, 5 and 6.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> 2 is too much change with too much unintended effect around the map

>

>> outside Russia.  I understand Bruce's desire to 'speed up' the Russian

>

>> setup for Barbarossa. But playing Russia I tend to not worry about

>

>> overuns. I just accept that they will happen, and that all of the Russian

>

>> at-start Army will die in either Summer or Fall.  Instead I try to set up

>

>> Russia so as to cause maximum risk and pain to the attacking Germans, not

>

>> so much to prevent overruns.  Russian doom is a design feature, and we

>

>> should just publicize that as given, to reassure players that they

>> needn't

>

>> obsess about defending the indefensible.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> Could go with 3 if Bruce thinks necessary.  But I recommend against it.

>

>> Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach Osten; seems

>

>> unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.

>

>>

>

>> Also, if such a change is made then it just cut the ground from under an

>

>> Axis strategy in one of my current games. Axis aimed for and got a CTL

>

>> increase in 1941. They want to use the newly capable Italian armor and

>

>> infantry in Russia. (Barbarossa attack just kicked off, with significant

>

>> Italian aid: 2o5 and five AAF.) Depriving the Axis of Italian services on

>

>> one of the war's most important fronts seems to reduce the attraction to

>

>> the Axis of the CTL research project.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> As for 4, we already gravely weakened, and created disincentive for,

>

>> airdrops onto defended hexes without a ground attack. The +1 DM

>

>> effectively reduces most of such attacks to 1:1s anyway. No need to

>

>> further legislate such high-risk options out of existence.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> Dave Hanson

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> From: Eric Thobaben <ethobaben@...>

>

>>

>

>> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com

>

>>

>

>> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:54 AM

>

>>

>

>> Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> My current thoughts in response to Bruce's proposal:

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> 1. Restrict production increments by year (agree).

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> 2. Overruns only by armor (agree).

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> 3. Prohibit Italian units on the eastern front (greater simplification).

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> 4. Airborne may only airdrop on vacant hexes or defended hexes in

>

>>

>

>> conjunction with a ground attack (agree).

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> 5. Russia must mobilize 1 AAF per mobilization (agree).

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> 6. Heavy armor research is abolished (agree). Russia and Germany may

>

>>

>

>> generate 5o6s at any time (agree).

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> ------------------------------------

>

>>

>

>> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To accommodate Randy's concern about overruns, here is a version that
restricts them to armor and mechanized infantry (i.e., Western Allied
infantry), with one units having to be armor.

Specialized units cannot overrun, period.  It requires a mechnized
component.

I can't go any farther than this.


Substantive change (June 30, 2012)

13.51  RESTRICTIONS: Overruns are an offensive operation that may only be
conducted by armor and mechanized infantry units. Overruns may take place
during the movement phase of both regular and exploitation movement. Units
being overrun are subject to both positive and negative DMs in the same
manner as units being attacked (15.3).
13.52  MECHANICS:  Overruns are conducted by moving no more than two armor
or mechanized infantry units through the same hexside into a hex containing
enemy unit(s) at odds of 6:1 or greater. At least one of the overrunning
units must be an armor unit; both overrunning units must have a functional
mechanized component. Each overrunning unit must expend one additional
movement point to occupy the overrun hex. If the units do not have
sufficient movement points, the overrun is prohibited.
13.521  Units performing overruns may arrive at the hex from which the
overrun is made from different locations. A sea-transported unit may overrun
in conjunction with another unit; armor units exploiting from different
breakthrough hexes may combine to overrun units.
13.522  No more than two armor units may move from a breakthrough hex into
the same adjacent hex to conduct an overrun against enemy ground units in
that hex.

To accommodate the concerns about German armor appearing first:

42.333  ARMOR:
A. GERMANY: Germany may produce 5-6 armor units in the year after the
outbreak of war between Germany and Russia.

This will usually be 1942, but not always.

This subject may be too difficult to resolve on the list, but I'll try for a bit
longer.

Here is an update on where (I think) we are:

1. Overruns by armor and mechanized infantry (slightly amended from armor only);
one unit must still be armor.
2. Heavy armor doesn't require research, but Germany may not produce until the
year after the outbreak of war with Russia (slightly amended); (so no overruns
against 5-defense in Barbarossa).
3. Armor has a +2 DM against airdrops.
4. No Russian firestorms and a second strategic bomber result needed to bombing
with more than 5 strategic bombers (still necessary because there is no
consensus on the general limitation of production increments).
5. Russia may only produce one air and military increment each year until at war
with Russia; no restriction on where these units can go (also necessary because
there is no consensus on the general limitation of production increments).
6. No other changes to production.
7. No change to Italians in Russia. (There should be, but no consensus).
8. No change to Russian mobilizations. (If the Italians remain as shock troops
in Russia, Russia will need its infantry).
9. Possibly allowing Russia to build beyond its UCL, at the expense of its BRP
base (one-third of its UCL) - probably too frightening to too many people, so
shelved.

That leaves:

1. Overruns by armor and mechanized infantry (slightly amended from armor only);
one unit must still be armor.
2. Heavy armor doesn't require research, but Germany may not produce until the
year after the outbreak of war with Russia (slightly amended); (so no overruns
against 5-defense in Barbarossa).
3. Armor has a +2 DM against airdrops.
4. No Russian firestorms and a second strategic bomber result needed to bombing
with more than 5 strategic bombers (still necessary because there is no
consensus on the general limitation of production increments).
5. Russia may only produce one air and military increment each year until at war
with Russia; no restriction on where these units can go (also necessary because
there is no consensus on the general limitation of production increments).

Can people handle this?

For the many who have probably lost track:

1 and 2 are mainly meant to prevent German overruns in Summer 1941 against
Russian hexes that have a defense of 6.  With airborne prohibited from
participating in overruns and no 5o6 armor available until 1942, these overruns
will be impossible.  This will greatly speed up play

3 prevents the freak 1:1 clearing attacks against armor when someone has three
airborne and three air transports.  This affects only a handful of games and
this change won't be noticed by most players, because the airdrops would have
been impossible anyway.

4 is necessary to balance the German bomber plan.

5 is necessary to somewhat restrain the Russia super-production strategy - in
most games Russia does this anyway, and we know it is balanced.  So it
eliminates an ahistorical plan that may imbalance the game.

That's it.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My thoughts inserted below, marked ****


From: Bruce Harper <bruce54321@...>
To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [aworldatwar] Re: Status report on changes (update)


 
This subject may be too difficult to resolve on the list, but I'll try for a bit
longer.

Here is an update on where (I think) we are:

1. Overruns by armor and mechanized infantry (slightly amended from armor only);
one unit must still be armor.   
 
          ****After thinking about overruns some more, and seeing
Bruce's inclusion of mechanized infantry (something useful for these units to
do), I make my peace with this change.
 
2. Heavy armor doesn't require research, but Germany may not produce until the
year after the outbreak of war with Russia (slightly amended); (so no overruns
against 5-defense in Barbarossa). 
 
          ****Good.   I like the simplification to Axis research.
 
3. Armor has a +2 DM against airdrops.  
 
          ****Okay, no biggie here.  Last time I dared (as Germans) an
airdrop on an armor unit was a three-1m3 drop with nine AAF on one of Nick
Szuczewski's 4o5s.   Success broke open the Russian front in 1942.  But, that
drop occurred even before we gave a +1 DM to defending units.  I'd never try it
afterward ...
 
4. No Russian firestorms and a second strategic bomber result needed to bombing
with more than 5 strategic bombers (still necessary because there is no
consensus on the general limitation of production increments).  
 
         ****If the German Bomber strategy really is thought to
overly-endanger Russia then I support this change.
 
5. Russia may only produce one air and military increment each year until at war
with Russia; no restriction on where these units can go (also necessary because
there is no consensus on the general limitation of production increments). 
 
        ****Communist efficiency.  This is fine.
 
6. No other changes to production.
7. No change to Italians in Russia. (There should be, but no consensus).  
 
       ****I would support the no-offensives limitation and leave it at
that. 
 
8. No change to Russian mobilizations. (If the Italians remain as shock troops
in Russia, Russia will need its infantry). 
 
       ****I actually did like the idea of mandating minimum one AAF per
mobilization. But I would allow combinations of mobilization and production BRPs
to achieve one.
 
9. Possibly allowing Russia to build beyond its UCL, at the expense of its BRP
base (one-third of its UCL) - probably too frightening to too many people, so
shelved.
 
      ****No opinion.  I probably would rarely if ever do it, so no skin
from my Russian nose if you want to allow this spending, Bruce. You have my
vote.
 
That leaves:

1. Overruns by armor and mechanized infantry (slightly amended from armor only);
one unit must still be armor.
2. Heavy armor doesn't require research, but Germany may not produce until the
year after the outbreak of war with Russia (slightly amended); (so no overruns
against 5-defense in Barbarossa).
3. Armor has a +2 DM against airdrops.
4. No Russian firestorms and a second strategic bomber result needed to bombing
with more than 5 strategic bombers (still necessary because there is no
consensus on the general limitation of production increments).
5. Russia may only produce one air and military increment each year until at war
with Russia; no restriction on where these units can go (also necessary because
there is no consensus on the general limitation of production increments).

Can people handle this?

For the many who have probably lost track:

1 and 2 are mainly meant to prevent German overruns in Summer 1941 against
Russian hexes that have a defense of 6. With airborne prohibited from
participating in overruns and no 5o6 armor available until 1942, these overruns
will be impossible. This will greatly speed up play

3 prevents the freak 1:1 clearing attacks against armor when someone has three
airborne and three air transports. This affects only a handful of games and this
change won't be noticed by most players, because the airdrops would have been
impossible anyway.

4 is necessary to balance the German bomber plan.

5 is necessary to somewhat restrain the Russia super-production strategy - in
most games Russia does this anyway, and we know it is balanced. So it eliminates
an ahistorical plan that may imbalance the game.

That's it.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am fine with these changes.  Speeding the game is a real bonus.
 
Bill


________________________________
From: Bruce Harper <bruce54321@...>
To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [aworldatwar] Re: Status report on changes (update)

 
This subject may be too difficult to resolve on the list, but I'll try for a bit
longer.

Here is an update on where (I think) we are:


That leaves:

1. Overruns by armor and mechanized infantry (slightly amended from armor only);
one unit must still be armor.
2. Heavy armor doesn't require research, but Germany may not produce until the
year after the outbreak of war with Russia (slightly amended); (so no overruns
against 5-defense in Barbarossa).
3. Armor has a +2 DM against airdrops.
4. No Russian firestorms and a second strategic bomber result needed to bombing
with more than 5 strategic bombers (still necessary because there is no
consensus on the general limitation of production increments).
5. Russia may only produce one air and military increment each year until at war
with Russia; no restriction on where these units can go (also necessary because
there is no consensus on the general limitation of production increments).

Can people handle this?

For the many who have probably lost track:

1 and 2 are mainly meant to prevent German overruns in Summer 1941 against
Russian hexes that have a defense of 6. With airborne prohibited from
participating in overruns and no 5o6 armor available until 1942, these overruns
will be impossible. This will greatly speed up play

3 prevents the freak 1:1 clearing attacks against armor when someone has three
airborne and three air transports. This affects only a handful of games and this
change won't be noticed by most players, because the airdrops would have been
impossible anyway.

4 is necessary to balance the German bomber plan.

5 is necessary to somewhat restrain the Russia super-production strategy - in
most games Russia does this anyway, and we know it is balanced. So it eliminates
an ahistorical plan that may imbalance the game.

That's it.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Please do not make playing Italy any more difficult that it already is.

Why must Italy always be the one to suffer in the big trade-offs when game
balance is supposedly at stake? I will tell you in a word: BIGOTRY.

We have already rendered Italy quite delicate by adding rules which freeze
Italian forces when Italy is pushed from Africa. I dislike these rules. There is
no historical basis for them. They're just or play balance: to make the Med
easier for the Allies.

Italy already has the worst Naval and Air modifiers. There is some truth to
this, and then there are the endless "screen-door on the submarine" stereotypes.
Enough already.

Italy already has the most under-rated mobilizations (40% of Germany, 50% of
Britain). As if this isn't already the biggest handicap you can give a
supposedly Major Power.

If you want to add regional operation limits, why not make Italy a minor power
like Rumania? Why don't you? ...it already plays like one. It would be much
simpler. ...and we love SIMPLE, right?

Thank you. The bigotry against Italy as a component in AWAW is not likely
intentional. Rather it is a biproduct of OKW-fans and the need for a balanced
game. Whenever it has come time to make a change in balance, it has been Italy
that has sufferred. Now, here we go again.

The Tiger tanks can roll in 1941, but half a million Italians are just a pack of
dumbfounded dipshits... and there is no way to alter that; nothing to research
to make Italy better; nothing that Italy can do (as Japan can) to keep itself
from locking up like a deer in the headlights.

IMHO, we have gone far enough in that direction. ...and just out of curiosity:
How many Italian-Americans, or Italians other Italian extra-nationals are within
the sound of my voice?


--- In aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com, "urukhai333" <urukhai333@...> wrote:
>
> In July 1941, some 62,000 Italian troops of the Italian Expeditionary Corps in
Russia (Corpo di Spedizione Italiano in Russia, or CSIR) left for the Eastern
Front to aid in the German invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa).
>
> In July 1942, the Italian Royal Army (Regio Esercito) expanded the CSIR to a
full army of about 200,000 men known as the Italian Army in Russia (Armata
Italiana in Russia, or ARMIR). The ARMIR was also known as the "Italian 8th
Army."
>
> In July 1942, Mussolini scaled up the Italian effort on the Eastern Front and
the CSIR became the 8th Italian Army. The 8th Italian Army was also known as the
Italian Army in Russia (Armata Italiana in Russia, or ARMIR). The ARMIR was
subordinated to German General Maximilian von Weichs' Army Group B.
> Italian General Italo Gariboldi took command of the newly formed ARMIR from
General Messe. As commander of the CSIR, Messe had opposed an enlargement of the
Italian contingent in Russia until it could be properly equipped. As a result,
he was dismissed.
>
> Just prior to commanding the ARMIR, Gariboldi was the Governor-General of
Libya. He was criticized after the war for being too submissive to the Germans.
>
> Mussolini sent seven new divisions to Russia for a total of ten divisions.
Four new infantry divisions were sent and included: The 2 Infantry Division
Sforzesca, the 3 Infantry Division Ravenna, the 5 Infantry Division Cosseria,
and the 156 Infantry Division Vicenza. In addition to the infantry divisions,
three new Alpini divisions were sent; The 2 Alpini Division Tridentina, the 3
Alpini Division Julia, and the 4 Alpini Division Cuneense. These new divisions
were added to the Torino, Pasubio, and Prince Amedeo Duke of Aosta divisions
already in Russia.
>
> No Italian Army on the Eastern Front?? Doesn't seem supported in fact.
> - By any reasonable approximation, that is at least 3-5 full divisions or 2
Army Corps at Barbarossa start and by '42 close to 200,000 Italians (in 10
divisions) were in the fight.

Although I have not played with many of the recent changes, I have noticed
the same thing. Once upon a time when we played a large player game, I
really enjoyed playing Italy. There seemed to be options and enough
challenge to play as a single player... but they have certainly changed
enough as a year ago to make them no very fun (IMO).



I would imagine Steven's comment on making them a minor power was probably
containing a hint of sarcasm, but this isn't far from the truth.... might be
a good idea to make them a minor power. (As much as such a dynamic change
would prolly not be supported by Bruce, too many rule corrections?)



Italy is kinda like China in this regards.... not much use other than to
hold a line while the other major power(s) make their move ;)



Darrel Christianson



E  |   <mailto:darrel.awaw@...>
darrel.awaw@...



From: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com [mailto:aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of StevenR
Sent: April-29-12 3:04 PM
To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [aworldatwar] Re: Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals





Thank you. The bigotry against Italy as a component in AWAW is not likely
intentional. Rather it is a biproduct of OKW-fans and the need for a
balanced game. Whenever it has come time to make a change in balance, it has
been Italy that has sufferred. Now, here we go again.

The Tiger tanks can roll in 1941, but half a million Italians are just a
pack of dumbfounded dipshits... and there is no way to alter that; nothing
to research to make Italy better; nothing that Italy can do (as Japan can)
to keep itself from locking up like a deer in the headlights.

IMHO, we have gone far enough in that direction. ...and just out of
curiosity: How many Italian-Americans, or Italians other Italian
extra-nationals are within the sound of my voice?

--- In aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aworldatwar%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"urukhai333" <urukhai333@...> wrote:
>
> In July 1941, some 62,000 Italian troops of the Italian Expeditionary
Corps in Russia (Corpo di Spedizione Italiano in Russia, or CSIR) left for
the Eastern Front to aid in the German invasion of the Soviet Union
(Operation Barbarossa).
>
> In July 1942, the Italian Royal Army (Regio Esercito) expanded the CSIR to
a full army of about 200,000 men known as the Italian Army in Russia (Armata
Italiana in Russia, or ARMIR). The ARMIR was also known as the "Italian 8th
Army."
>
> In July 1942, Mussolini scaled up the Italian effort on the Eastern Front
and the CSIR became the 8th Italian Army. The 8th Italian Army was also
known as the Italian Army in Russia (Armata Italiana in Russia, or ARMIR).
The ARMIR was subordinated to German General Maximilian von Weichs' Army
Group B.
> Italian General Italo Gariboldi took command of the newly formed ARMIR
from General Messe. As commander of the CSIR, Messe had opposed an
enlargement of the Italian contingent in Russia until it could be properly
equipped. As a result, he was dismissed.
>
> Just prior to commanding the ARMIR, Gariboldi was the Governor-General of
Libya. He was criticized after the war for being too submissive to the
Germans.
>
> Mussolini sent seven new divisions to Russia for a total of ten divisions.
Four new infantry divisions were sent and included: The 2 Infantry Division
Sforzesca, the 3 Infantry Division Ravenna, the 5 Infantry Division
Cosseria, and the 156 Infantry Division Vicenza. In addition to the infantry
divisions, three new Alpini divisions were sent; The 2 Alpini Division
Tridentina, the 3 Alpini Division Julia, and the 4 Alpini Division Cuneense.
These new divisions were added to the Torino, Pasubio, and Prince Amedeo
Duke of Aosta divisions already in Russia.
>
> No Italian Army on the Eastern Front?? Doesn't seem supported in fact.
> - By any reasonable approximation, that is at least 3-5 full divisions or
2 Army Corps at Barbarossa start and by '42 close to 200,000 Italians (in 10
divisions) were in the fight.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Harper" <bruce54321@...> wrote:
>
> This subject may be too difficult to resolve on the list, but I'll try for a
bit longer.
>
> Here is an update on where (I think) we are:
>

> That leaves:
>
> 1. Overruns by armor and mechanized infantry (slightly amended from armor
only); one unit must still be armor.

That's fine.  I'll cope. :-)


> 2. Heavy armor doesn't require research, but Germany may not produce until the
year after the outbreak of war with Russia (slightly amended); (so no overruns
against 5-defense in Barbarossa).

OK.

Just checking: Russia can mobilize/produce 5o6s whenever they have the
mobilization/production BRPs to do so usually (Fall 1940 for armor appearing in
Wi41) and also don't have to research the capability. (Which IMO *should* be the
rule if Germany gets this ability.)

> 3. Armor has a +2 DM against airdrops.

Good.

> 4. No Russian firestorms and a second strategic bomber result needed to
bombing with more than 5 strategic bombers (still necessary because there is no
consensus on the general limitation of production increments).

Reluctantly OK


> 5. Russia may only produce one air and military increment each year until at
war with Russia; no restriction on where these units can go (also necessary
because there is no consensus on the general limitation of production
increments).

OK.  I'd prefer requiring the AAF be mobilized anyway, but see why you don't
want to do it in this package.

Ed



>
> Can people handle this?
>
> For the many who have probably lost track:
>
> 1 and 2 are mainly meant to prevent German overruns in Summer 1941 against
Russian hexes that have a defense of 6.  With airborne prohibited from
participating in overruns and no 5o6 armor available until 1942, these overruns
will be impossible.  This will greatly speed up play
>
> 3 prevents the freak 1:1 clearing attacks against armor when someone has three
airborne and three air transports.  This affects only a handful of games and
this change won't be noticed by most players, because the airdrops would have
been impossible anyway.
>
> 4 is necessary to balance the German bomber plan.
>
> 5 is necessary to somewhat restrain the Russia super-production strategy - in
most games Russia does this anyway, and we know it is balanced.  So it
eliminates an ahistorical plan that may imbalance the game.
>
> That's it.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

StevenR wrote:

> Why must Italy always be the one to suffer in the big trade-offs
> when game balance is supposedly at stake?
> I will tell you in a word: BIGOTRY.

I do not get where this is coming from.

The game has close to forever 'super-sized' Italy.
Then when an attempt to rationalize - instead of exaggerate - Italy is
attempted, someone cries 'bigot'?!?
Whiskey Tango?!?


For *decades* players have commonly sent every Italian armour, all the
Italian air and some infantry to the Russia front.
Do you really think Italy had those capabilities?
That Italy could have tried that without some serious consequences?

Italian commitment to the Russian front was minimal compared to what
Germany sent.
But that is not what happens in the game.

Players abuse their 'you are in command' options.
And they do it game after game after game.

Like I said, I wouldn't care if this happened once in a while with the
majority of games seeing Italy act like Italy could have in the war (we
all want some variety).
But it isn't 1 or 2 games in 10 - it is 8, 9 or 10 games in 10.

A long standing design principle of the game is the historical path should
be not only a viable option for layers but should also happen a reasonable
amount of time, with deviation from that going in both directions.
The corollary to that principle was when the deviation is consistent and
always in the same direction, then adjustments need to be made.


Do you think the Italian deviation in the game is centered on what Italy
did historically?

DonMoody

StevenR wrote:

> We have already rendered Italy quite delicate by adding rules
> which freeze Italian forces when Italy is pushed from Africa.
> I dislike these rules.
> There is no historical basis for them.
> They're just or play balance:
> to make the Med easier for the Allies.

What?!?

Have you looked at historical Italian performance?
There is gobs of historical data to support those rules.
If fact, there is hoards more to support even greater restrictions on Italy.

Like Bruce said:
"You also cannot EVER "trust the reasonable man to not press the reules
for arcane strategies that 'break' the ruleset".  Players do EXACTLY
that."

So we have to have adjust the rules to better represent the historical
options the players' historical counterparts had.

This isn't Axis & Allies or some other fantastical WW2-as-just-a-backdrop
game.
This is the best representation of the historical capabilities, dilemmas
and options.

DonMoody

Italian "no change" is more supportable than what was proposed
previously...information below pretty well establishes the presence of the
CSIR/ARMIR.

The 8th Italian Army was organized into three corps: The XXXV Army Corps, the II
Army Corps, and the Mountain (Alpini) Corps.
  - The XXXV Corps included the three divisions of the CSIR: Torino, Pasubio, and
Amedeo Duca d'Aosta.
  - The II Corps included the new Sforzesca, Ravenna, and Cosseria divisions.
  - The Mountain Corps included the Tridentina, the Julia, and Cuneense
divisions. The Vicenza Division was under direct command of the 8th Army and was
primarily utilized behind the front on "lines of communications" duties,
security and anti-partisan.

In addition to the ten divisions, the 8th Italian Army included the 298th and
62nd German divisions (the latter being sent to Stalingrad), a Fascist Croatian
volunteer legion, and three legions of Italian Blackshirt Fascist volunteers
(Camicie Nere, or CCNN).

By November 1942, the 8th Italian Army had a total of 235,000 men in twelve
divisions and four legions. It was equipped with 988 guns, 420 mortars, 25,000
horses, and 17,000 vehicles.

While the Italians did receive 12 German Mk. IV tanks and had captured several
Soviet tanks, there were still very few modern tanks and anti-tank guns
available to the ARMIR. The few tanks that were available still tended to be
obsolete Italian models. Both the L6/40 light tanks (armed with a turret-mounted
20 mm Breda Model 35 gun) and the 47 mm anti-tank guns (Cannone da 47/32 M35)
were out of date when Italy declared war on 10 June 1940. Compared to what the
Soviets had available to them in late 1942 and early 1943, Italian tanks and
anti-tank guns could be considered more dangerous to the crews than to the
enemy.

Moreover, as was the complaint of General Messe with the CSIR, the ARMIR was
seriously short of adequate winter equipment. Small weapons were also often
inadequate or even useless. Rifles and machine guns were terribly prone to
jamming. The Carcano rifle and the Breda 30 light machine gun had to be kept for
a long time on a source of heat to work properly in extreme climatic conditions,
and thus were often not capable of firing in the midst of battle. Ironically,
these last two weapons were considered the deadliest among the Italian arsenal.
The heavy Breda M37 proved to be a slightly more reliable machine gun, though
having an excessive weight and very slow rate of fire. The old belt-fed Fiat 14
was also seen in small numbers, but was obsolete. The praised high-quality
Beretta 38A submachine guns were extremely rare, and given only in small numbers
to specialized units, such as the Blackshirt legions, some tank crews or
Carabinieri military police. Italian paratroopers in North Africa were equipped
exclusively with this weapon, and gave outstanding combat results. There was
total absence of any portable anti-tank weapon, thus making hand grenades,
machine guns and mortars the last resort against Soviet armour. Hand grenades
rarely detonated or detonated off time. The Brixia Model 35 45mm mortars were
under-gunned and weak, and larger 81mm mortars modello 35 were rare.

The Aviation Command of the ARMIR had a total of roughly 64 aircraft. The ARMIR
had the following aircraft available to it: Macchi C.200 "Thunder" (Saetta)
fighter, Macchi C.202 "Lightning" (Folgore) fighter, Caproni Ca.311 light
reconnaissance-bomber, and Fiat Br.20 "Stork" (Cicogna) twin-engined bomber.

Bottom line...considering the scale of AWAW, the Italians should be allowed on
the Eastern Front as much as the Axis sees fit. If the Spanish Blue division
(one division mind you) gets a 2-3 counter...you get the idea. That said, it
seems historically VERY reasonable to allow NO Italian armor and/or AAF. What
armor the Italians had was functionally laughable on the Eastern Front and the
Regia Aeronautica (while historically pretty credible) just didn't have the
numbers with so much pressure in the Med/NA.

Horse is dead I know...but

My proposal:
- Allow as much Italian infantry on the EF as the Axis player wants
- No Italian armor outside Med
- 1 Italian AAF (they WERE there and certainly COULD afford as much as the
Finns,Bulgarians, Hungarian or Romanians) allowed on the EF

Given the previous "defanging" of the Italian Army outside the Med, this seems
to be a reasonable compromise and reflects historical "potentials".

Thanks
AJ

--- In aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Harper" <bruce54321@...> wrote:
>
> This subject may be too difficult to resolve on the list, but I'll try for a
bit longer.
>
> Here is an update on where (I think) we are:
>
> 1. Overruns by armor and mechanized infantry (slightly amended from armor
only); one unit must still be armor.
> 2. Heavy armor doesn't require research, but Germany may not produce until the
year after the outbreak of war with Russia (slightly amended); (so no overruns
against 5-defense in Barbarossa).
> 3. Armor has a +2 DM against airdrops.
> 4. No Russian firestorms and a second strategic bomber result needed to
bombing with more than 5 strategic bombers (still necessary because there is no
consensus on the general limitation of production increments).
> 5. Russia may only produce one air and military increment each year until at
war with Russia; no restriction on where these units can go (also necessary
because there is no consensus on the general limitation of production
increments).
> 6. No other changes to production.
> 7. No change to Italians in Russia. (There should be, but no consensus).
> 8. No change to Russian mobilizations. (If the Italians remain as shock troops
in Russia, Russia will need its infantry).
> 9. Possibly allowing Russia to build beyond its UCL, at the expense of its BRP
base (one-third of its UCL) - probably too frightening to too many people, so
shelved.
>
> That leaves:
>
> 1. Overruns by armor and mechanized infantry (slightly amended from armor
only); one unit must still be armor.
> 2. Heavy armor doesn't require research, but Germany may not produce until the
year after the outbreak of war with Russia (slightly amended); (so no overruns
against 5-defense in Barbarossa).
> 3. Armor has a +2 DM against airdrops.
> 4. No Russian firestorms and a second strategic bomber result needed to
bombing with more than 5 strategic bombers (still necessary because there is no
consensus on the general limitation of production increments).
> 5. Russia may only produce one air and military increment each year until at
war with Russia; no restriction on where these units can go (also necessary
because there is no consensus on the general limitation of production
increments).
>
> Can people handle this?
>
> For the many who have probably lost track:
>
> 1 and 2 are mainly meant to prevent German overruns in Summer 1941 against
Russian hexes that have a defense of 6.  With airborne prohibited from
participating in overruns and no 5o6 armor available until 1942, these overruns
will be impossible.  This will greatly speed up play
>
> 3 prevents the freak 1:1 clearing attacks against armor when someone has three
airborne and three air transports.  This affects only a handful of games and
this change won't be noticed by most players, because the airdrops would have
been impossible anyway.
>
> 4 is necessary to balance the German bomber plan.
>
> 5 is necessary to somewhat restrain the Russia super-production strategy - in
most games Russia does this anyway, and we know it is balanced.  So it
eliminates an ahistorical plan that may imbalance the game.
>
> That's it.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

To bad you feel that way, but calling people bigots is too much.Italy suffered
from poor equipment and logistics, including low production throughout the
war.And, like the UK initially, its senior officers were hopeless in most cases.
Yes, the individual soldiers did well when given the equipement and supplies,
which was not very often. And certain branches also did well, like the small
naval units (but not the heavies). The same with the air, but hard to do well
overall with inferior planes.
  To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
From: ke6lnh@...
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 20:34:29 +0000
Subject: [aworldatwar] Minimizing Italy


























       Please do not make playing Italy any more difficult that it already is.



Why must Italy always be the one to suffer in the big trade-offs when game
balance is supposedly at stake? I will tell you in a word: BIGOTRY.



We have already rendered Italy quite delicate by adding rules which freeze
Italian forces when Italy is pushed from Africa. I dislike these rules. There is
no historical basis for them. They're just or play balance: to make the Med
easier for the Allies.



Italy already has the worst Naval and Air modifiers. There is some truth to
this, and then there are the endless "screen-door on the submarine" stereotypes.
Enough already.



Italy already has the most under-rated mobilizations (40% of Germany, 50% of
Britain). As if this isn't already the biggest handicap you can give a
supposedly Major Power.



If you want to add regional operation limits, why not make Italy a minor power
like Rumania? Why don't you? ...it already plays like one. It would be much
simpler. ...and we love SIMPLE, right?


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think this is a pointless argument.  Bruce had already indicated he wont make
any italian changes.  I certainly agree that none are needed.  Italy sent some
of best units to the eastern front and they fought well, until surprised at
stalingrad, where russian heavy armor made short work of them.  But the gemrans
hardly fared better, and the romanians worse.  And we dont stop romania from
taking offensives or deploying their air.  The -1 drm that is already in place
is quite sufficient in my mind.
 
Bill


________________________________
From: "donmoody@..." <donmoody@...>
To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 6:51 PM
Subject: [aworldatwar] Re: Rationalizing Italy


 
StevenR wrote:

> We have already rendered Italy quite delicate by adding rules
> which freeze Italian forces when Italy is pushed from Africa.
> I dislike these rules.
> There is no historical basis for them.
> They're just or play balance:
> to make the Med easier for the Allies.

What?!?

Have you looked at historical Italian performance?
There is gobs of historical data to support those rules.
If fact, there is hoards more to support even greater restrictions on Italy.

Like Bruce said:
"You also cannot EVER "trust the reasonable man to not press the reules
for arcane strategies that 'break' the ruleset". Players do EXACTLY
that."

So we have to have adjust the rules to better represent the historical
options the players' historical counterparts had.

This isn't Axis & Allies or some other fantastical WW2-as-just-a-backdrop
game.
This is the best representation of the historical capabilities, dilemmas
and options.

DonMoody




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

StevenR wrote:

> We have already rendered Italy quite delicate by adding rules
> which freeze Italian forces when Italy is pushed from Africa.
> I dislike these rules.
> There is no historical basis for them.
> They're just or play balance:
> to make the Med easier for the Allies.

What?!?

Have you looked at historical Italian performance?
There is gobs of historical data to support those rules.
If fact, there is hoards more to support even greater restrictions on Italy.

Like Bruce said:
"You also cannot EVER "trust the reasonable man to not press the reules
for arcane strategies that 'break' the ruleset".  Players do EXACTLY
that."

So we have to have adjust the rules to better represent the historical
options the players' historical counterparts had.

This isn't Axis & Allies or some other fantastical WW2-as-just-a-backdrop
game.
This is the best representation of the historical capabilities, dilemmas
and options.

DonMoody

True, but do you think having , in additioin to any infantry, 3 Italian 2-5s and
5+ air in Russia in 41 is also reasonable? But game has been this way for some
time, so be it.  To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
From: wpmoodey@...
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:01:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [aworldatwar] Re: Rationalizing Italy


























       I think this is a pointless argument.  Bruce had already indicated he wont
make any italian changes.  I certainly agree that none are needed.  Italy sent
some of best units to the eastern front and they fought well, until surprised at
stalingrad, where russian heavy armor made short work of them.  But the gemrans
hardly fared better, and the romanians worse.  And we dont stop romania from
taking offensives or deploying their air.  The -1 drm that is already in place
is quite sufficient in my mind.



Bill



________________________________

From: "donmoody@..." <donmoody@...>

To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 6:51 PM

Subject: [aworldatwar] Re: Rationalizing Italy





StevenR wrote:



> We have already rendered Italy quite delicate by adding rules

> which freeze Italian forces when Italy is pushed from Africa.

> I dislike these rules.

> There is no historical basis for them.

> They're just or play balance:

> to make the Med easier for the Allies.



What?!?



Have you looked at historical Italian performance?

There is gobs of historical data to support those rules.

If fact, there is hoards more to support even greater restrictions on Italy.



Like Bruce said:

"You also cannot EVER "trust the reasonable man to not press the reules

for arcane strategies that 'break' the ruleset". Players do EXACTLY

that."



So we have to have adjust the rules to better represent the historical

options the players' historical counterparts had.



This isn't Axis & Allies or some other fantastical WW2-as-just-a-backdrop

game.

This is the best representation of the historical capabilities, dilemmas

and options.



DonMoody



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bill Moodey wrote:

> I think this is a pointless argument.
> Bruce had already indicated he wont make any italian changes.

That's sad.

> I certainly agree that none are needed.
> Italy sent some of best units to the eastern front and they
> fought well, until surprised at stalingrad, where russian
> heavy armor made short work of them.
> But the gemrans hardly fared better, and the romanians worse.
> And we dont stop romania from taking offensives or deploying
> their air.

Last I checked, Rumania has 1 AAF and no armour units.
And I am pretty sure that once Germany attacked Russian, Rumania
consistently had 200+ aircraft actively involved in the fight.
Which, I believe is significantly more than Italy ever had on the eastern
front.
So based upon historical performance, allowing the Rumanian AAF and not
allowing most of the Italian airforce seems justified.

> The -1 drm that is already in place is quite sufficient in my mind.

While I can see that argument, the counter-argument is:
In the war, Italy sent 'x'.
In the game, players only rarely send just 'x' and almost never send 'less
than x'.
Instead, players are consistently sending '3x' or '4x' or more.

I would like to see some incentive in the game (whether carrot or stick)
so the historical sent 'x' is a viable option that we see in many games -
with other games seeing more *and about as many seeing less*.


Maurice Miskow wrote:

> True, but do you think having, in addition to any infantry,
> 3 Italian 2-5s and 5+ air in Russia in 41 is also reasonable?

Of course that isn't reasonable (at least not from a 'what options did
Italy actually have?' perspective).

And this:

> But game has been this way for some time, so be it.

Seems like insufficient justification for the status quo.

DonMoody

Dave Hanson wrote:

> Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach Osten;
> seems unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.

If 'major' is the word you use to describe the 'historical commitment',
what word would you use to describe what we commonly see occurring in the
game (i.e. all or all but one of the Italian armour units, all or all but
all os the Italian air, some infantry)?

DonMoody