Adding Events

[JMass]

I am working to add new events and to modify some, and I would like to discuss some ideas (but I must remember you my English is scholastic [;)]) at the moment I am thinking to change the Vichy event (eventID="14") to create two separate entity, Vichy and Syria-Lebanon (using the slot of one country not in game as San Marino), this to permit the historical Allies invasion of Syria and Lebanon but without Vichy joins Axis.
Some other events I am adding or I am willing to do are:
<!--Soviet ultimatum for Romania-->
<!--Occupation of Bessarabia-->
<!--Suez is in Axis hands -->
<!--Coup d'etat in Yugoslavia -->
<!--Suez is in Axis hands -->
<!--Germans and Italians invade unoccupied Vichy France -->
<!--the Italian Fascist government falls-->
<!--Italian surrender is announced-->
<!--Mussolini re-establishes a Fascist government (Salò Republic)-->
<!--Polish Home Army uprising in Warsaw begins, Red Army helps or waits?-->
<!--Soviet troops take Bucharest, Romanian Army joins Red Army-->
<!--Yugoslavian partisans are active-->

[winky51]

<!--Soviet ultimatum for Romania-->&nbsp;&nbsp; ties into the next one.&nbsp; And any smart german player would give the soviets the land.
<!--Occupation of Bessarabia-->&nbsp;&nbsp; see above.
<!--Suez is in Axis hands -->&nbsp;&nbsp; US entry hit
<!--Coup d'etat in Yugoslavia -->&nbsp;&nbsp; Already part of the game with diplomatic points.&nbsp; Its called a coup.
<!--Germans and Italians invade unoccupied Vichy France -->&nbsp;&nbsp; US entry hit
<!--the Italian Fascist government falls-->&nbsp;&nbsp; probably destroy the game if Italy wasnt the axis
<!--Italian surrender is announced-->&nbsp;&nbsp; that would be interesting since they surrendered before rome was taken
<!--Mussolini re-establishes a Fascist government (Salò Republic)-->&nbsp;&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; just as a message?
<!--Polish Home Army uprising in Warsaw begins, Red Army helps or waits?-->&nbsp;&nbsp; no real significant effect here except a loos of german troops.
<!--Soviet troops take Bucharest, Romanian Army joins Red Army-->&nbsp;&nbsp; within scope but difficult to play in game or maybe not swap political.
<!--Yugoslavian partisans are active-->&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not in there already?
&nbsp;

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: winky51
<!--Coup d'etat in Yugoslavia -->   Already part of the game with diplomatic points.  Its called a coup.

Now Yugoslavia is pro-allied but historically was pro-axis, this is to reproduce the delay the coup caused to Barbarossa otherwise it is too simple for Germany attack and occupy Balkans in the autumn 1940.

<!--Germans and Italians invade unoccupied Vichy France -->   US entry hit
<!--Suez is in Axis hands --> US entry hit

These are new events?

<!--Mussolini re-establishes a Fascist government (Salò Republic)-->   Why?  just as a message?

To divide Italy in two parts, one allied with Axis and the latter with Allies (or just occupied).

<!--Polish Home Army uprising in Warsaw begins, Red Army helps or waits?-->   no real significant effect here except a loos of german troops.

To reflect in some way the Stalin's decision to froze Red Army on the Vistula.

<!--Soviet troops take Bucharest, Romanian Army joins Red Army-->   within scope but difficult to play in game or maybe not swap political.

If I have understand the problem is the lack of a method to change the orientation of countries during the game.

<!--Yugoslavian partisans are active-->    not in there already?

No, just in Russia

[geozero]

Is it that Yugoslavia has been set pro-allies in the game so that it CAN be attacked by Axis to better reflect historical event?&nbsp; I don't think Yugoslavia was either pro-allies or pro-axis IRL before the coup, as I recall Germany had already marched into Bulgaria in preparation of reaching/attacking Greece... and Bulgaria, Italy and Hungary all had territorial claims against Yugoslavia.&nbsp; Hitler pretty much forced the Regent Prince Paul on March 25, 1941 to join the Tripartite Pact.&nbsp; I don't think they went willingly.&nbsp; Either way that government was overthrown just 2 days later by a more pro-British friendly government, and THIS was the trigger for an invasion.&nbsp;

[doomtrader]

I'm going to track this thread.

[winky51]

That sounds right geozero but they were still joining, Bulgaria joined out of fear.
&nbsp;
Some of the other minor events I seriously feel dont belong in this game unless this game is made out to be a historical simulation (yawn) rather than a "what if" board game.&nbsp; If that is the case then you might as well add the capture of u-boat (I forgot the #) in 1942 where they got the code book, that was significant or the assassination attempt on Hitler to remove Rommel from the game in 1944.&nbsp; Its too much.

[doomtrader]

Anyway, if players wish to do so, then go ahead,
Start with a question event for a player does he wants historical gameplay or no, set a flag with his choice and use it in every next event.

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: winky51

Some of the other minor events I seriously feel dont belong in this game unless this game is made out to be a historical simulation (yawn) rather than a "what if" board game.

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Start with a question event for a player does he wants historical gameplay or no, set a flag with his choice and use it in every next event.

I would add events to give more choices to players, not prefixed events. As an example, I don't care about an historical invasion of Syria and Lebanon but I want give the British player the possibility to invade knowing the major risk (risk, not the immediate and predicable adhesion) that Vichy (and his fleet) joins Axis, this is not an historical simulation but it is an historical "what if".

[geozero]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Anyway, if players wish to do so, then go ahead,
Start with a question event for a player does he wants historical gameplay or no, set a flag with his choice and use it in every next event.

HOI2 does this with pop ups that ask what decision the player wants to do.

There could be 2 ways of doing this:

1) Start with a "campaign" that leaves out the historical events, not even a German/Soviet pact that would divide Poland. Leave it completely open.

2) Start with a "campaign" that has the scripts with choices that the player can make also, helping randomize the game slightly, but keeping with the overall major events.


Whenever I played 3R or any strategic level WW2 game, I was always surprised that most players wanted "house" rules...i.e., Germany attacks Poland, Allies do nothing, Germany attacks Denmark and Norway, then Low Countries/France, then Yugoslavia, then Soviet Union... it was rather boring. HOI2 let's you start in 1936 and lets you pretty much build the type of industry and military that you want before there's ever a shot fired.

I vividly recall a 3R game where the German player attacks France first and Poland slightly afterwards, both countries being crushed. Another game where the Allies attack Germany along the North Sea coastline in early 1940, and even taking Hamburg. Yet another game where Italy actually takes Alexandria!

These games are more memorable because the players chose not to follow historical events and simply used their skills and cunning to change the way the war was fought.

Still, if you give the choices as in scripts, it will appease everyone.

Shouldn't be that difficult. [:D]

[winky51]

options are what make WW2 games interesting.

[JMass]

Please, what are valid operator values for the event engine? I need the correct value for "not equals".

[&:]

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: JMass
I want give the British player the possibility to invade knowing the major risk (risk, not the immediate and predicable adhesion) that Vichy (and his fleet) joins Axis.

I found a very easy solution, I must just change the zone of influence of Vichy from "axis" to "none". For Yugoslavia I am thinking about this: it start pro-axis, if it joins Axis (I'll give Germany more DP to be able to do this) an event will ask the GB player if he want to help a coup, if he choose "yes" Yugoslavia will became the pro-allied "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" (in the same manner France became Vichy), leaving Germany in the doubt of to delay Barbarossa.

[doomtrader]

ORIGINAL: JMass

Please, what are valid operator values for the event engine? I need the correct value for "not equals".

[&:]

Try those:

Code: Select all

value="equals"
 value="notEquals"
 value="greater"
 value="less"
 value="greaterOrEqual"
 value="lessOrEqual"

[JMass]

Thanks! My new events grow up well!
[:)]

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: JMass
For Yugoslavia I am thinking about this: it start pro-axis, if it joins Axis (I'll give Germany more DP to be able to do this) an event will ask the GB player if he want to help a coup, if he choose "yes" Yugoslavia will became the pro-allied "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" (in the same manner France became Vichy), leaving Germany in the doubt of to delay Barbarossa.

One problem rises: the engine seems not previde the possibility of create units (or change possession - naval units excluded) by events, when Kingdom of Yugoslavia become active it has no units...
[&:]

[JMass]

Just found an escamotage, useful also for Vichy units!
[:)]

[Michael the Pole]

I thought that I'd enter a suggestion about Great Britain.  I've always thought that Hitler's critical mistake was chosing to go East rather than South in 1941.  If he had taken Malta rather than Crete, stationing a Luft Flotte there, and then given Rommel a second Panzer Korps, he could have achieved air and thus naval superiority over the central Med and Libya and undoubtably taken Alexandria and the Suez Canal. 
This would have achieved what Liddel Hart calls an indirect approach to the heart of the British Empire, and more importantly, when combined with the loss of Singapore in early 1942, would almost certainly have resulted in the fall of the Churchill administration and his replacement with Halifax or someone even worse. (See vol 4 of Churchills history of the war.)
The loss of Egypt and the Canal in early 1942 would have split the Commonwealth in half.  The loss of the Anzac units that would have followed defeat in Egypt, combined with the loss of the Canal would almost certainly have forced Australia and New Zealand to concentrate on their home defence, which would have been seen as another motion of no confidence in Churchill who was reeling from the loss of Singapore.  Loss of the Canal and the Anzac forces would have made India all the more difficult to hold.  The loss of India and Burma might have made all the difference to the Jappanese war in China.  The loss of Egypt would have almost certainly resulted in pro Axis revolts in Iran, Iraq and less likely, Saudi Arabia.  Iran (Persia) was critical to the Royal Navy as its primary source of fuel oil.  There simply wasnt enough tanker capacity to provide the Royal Navys needs from other sources, if they had even proved to be available.
If you read Churchill, the unwritten but clear theme is the steady and essentially unrelieved (except for East Africa) drumbeat of defeats from Poland to Norway to France, Greece, Crete, Singapore, and on and on.  One more major defeat before the United States entered the war would have been more than Churchill's coalition could take.
Additionally, the loss of another Panzer Korps and the delay in the arrival of an additional Luft Flotte wouldnt have made much of a difference in Barbarossa, and might even have resulted in a more rational goal for the first years fighting against the Soviets.  There was a major faction of the German army, who like Davout's suggestion to Napoleon, favored going no further than the line Kiev - Smolensk except to insure the major encirclement defeats of the Red Army.  Then well dug in, and well supplied at the completed railheads in western Russia, the Germans could have easily destroyed the Soviet Winter Counter attacks and destroyed the remains of the USSR in 1942.

[Michael the Pole]

I disagree with the mandatory destruction of the Maginot Line. As far as I can discover, Hitler never ordered the destruction of the Maginot Line, and it was still largely intact and operational in 1944, when it was occupied by the Germans. It gave Patton and the 3rd Army a very hard time at Metz and in the northern Alsace. Interestingly, the French reocuppied the Line after the war, and parts of it were in active service as nuclear safe HQs into the mid Sixties. The french Air Force continues to operate Ouvrage Hochwald as a command facility to this day
Another widely held misconception about the Line, is that its left flank was left hanging in the air. In fact the Line was designed to tie into the Belgian fortification line. However, when the Belgians declared neutrality in 1936 (breaking the mutual defence treaty with France) they adopted an "all-around defence" posture that combined with the lack of French units to fill out the defenders, made their line vunerable.
When the Belgians ended the treaty, the French made a half-hearted effort to extend the line to the Channel, but without much success. During the Phony War (1939-1940) further efforts were made to strengthen the Line, again without much success.
The critical flaw in the Line was not the fortificatrions - they did exactly what they were designed to do, and did it very well. They channeled the German advance into a potential killing ground where they could have been stopped and destroyed. (Rommels river crossing at Sedan was a VERY close thing!) The decision by the French General Staff that the border area behind the Ardennes was unable to support an advance and that a gap in the fortifications there was not significant, was only part of the French debacle. The fall of France was caused by the Allied decision (taken mostly as a slap at the Belgians) not to advance and occupy the Belgian fortification line and the French decision not to place adequate forces to defend Sedan and the gap in the Maginot line.
It would be interesting (and more historicaly accurate) to place Liege on the map (104, 88?) and give the Belgians a fortification line running from 103,91 to 103,89 then 104,87 - 105-87, 105,86 - 104,85 - 104, 84. (By my calculations, Luxembourg should be somewhat larger, including hexes 105,92 and 93.) The Belgian OOB should consist of 6 infantry corps (effectively divisions) and 1 cavalry corps, but may not deploy 2 of their corps and their cavalry corps east of the 101 hex row. Alternatively (and my own personal choice!) the Belgian units should be corps, but the Rapid German advance effect should last at least 2 turns.