I think I have made all the technical changes needed, but feel free to let me know if you hit a glitch: http://www.motcreations.com
@imperious-leader
By the way, did you get a physical copy of The Great War’s map?
I seem to recall that there was only one player who ever got their hands on it, and I swore that was you – but maybe I’m misremembering.
I wonder how much of a challenge that getting the custom pieces for it would be, in this age of 3D printing being so much more ubiquitous. IIRC that was the big economic stumbling block, for Imp Games.
@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
Balance Fix: reduced starting forces for NATO
With the game now being available to everyone via MapView, I’ve been able to play and tinker a bit, and I’m coming back to this idea again. The overall intention being to adjust the balance of the two opposing forces, without it being noticeable enough to impact the game’s overall presentation.
One thing I should touch on right away from the previous post, is that I was using the totals for NATO infantry from the “total” column in the rulebook… which has some addition errors; specifically, the total UK infantry is actually 31, not 33. (Their starting income is 33 …coincidence?)
Anyway, here’s my revised idea (after much back-and-forth) that I’d be willing to test out if anyone wants to have a game:
The Soviets also receive the following boosts; these would be in lieu of the 20 IPC “rapid mobilization” bonus:
Final tally:
Infantry:
USSR (+15) / Total: 75
WE (-7) / Total: 21
UK (-8) / Total: 23
US (-6) / Total: 27
[NATO total: 71]
Fighters:
USSR (+2) / Total: 9
WE (-1) / Total: 3
UK (-1) / Total: 3
US (-1) / Total: 6
[NATO total: 12]
Submarines:
USSR [unchanged] Total: 6
WE [unchanged] Total: 1
UK (-1) / Total: 3
US (-1) / Total: 3
[NATO Total: 7]
Cruisers:
USSR (+2) / Total: 6
NATO [unchanged] Total: 7
– Any comments/questions, just shoot me a reply below ;)
Basic Mechanics: The India Stack
Pictured above is the starting setup, highlighting the Indian Ocean and surrounding areas.
Just by placing on land, the UK can add 5 infantry to this theatre every round; 1 in Pakistan, 3 in India, and 1 in Burma. Western Europe (WE) can also add 2 infantry in Indochina every round, but likely won’t have the economy to be able to afford it, after round 1.
However, there are 3 transports that the UK can use to further reinforce India: the one at India itself, another at Italy, and a third by Australia. Since the UK can place 7 infantry per round in Africa, they can easily keep these transports full every round, shucking either from the Red Sea or Mozambique SZ to unload into Pakistan. By linking up the various UK navies in the Persian Gulf SZ, this creates a strong pipeline into central Asia.
2 - South Africa
1 - Rhodesia
1 - Tanganyika
1 - Sudan
1 - Nigeria
2 - Singapore
Now, the UK’s starting income being 33 means that placing 5 infantry on land and 6 more to be moved via transport, would require spending their entire income on infantry, each round. Doing so would necessarily mean not adding any units in Europe.
An alternative is for the UK to place an industrial complex in India, thereby increasing the amount of infantry that they can place by 3, up to a total of 8. It also speeds up how quickly these additional units can reach the front line. The other reason to do this, is to get armor or other units built in-theatre. In either case, this leaves very little income remaining for the UK to do anything else, while also leaving them few options for utilizing their transports.
Now, for the opposite perspective…
To match the 5 infantry that the UK can place on land, the USSR needs to place 2 in Kazakhstan, 2 in Turkmenistan, and 1 in Mongolia – each of these territories being within one space of Sinkiang. The problem they face is that the fighters from Indochina and Australia make for a formidable defense of India; by contrast, the USSR has no offensive units in the immediate area to counter this.
The other areas that the USSR needs to defend in this part of the world, are their coastal territories in Asia: Kamchatka, Eastern Siberia, and North Korea. Since these areas are under threat by the US immediately at the start of the game it makes sense for the USSR to be placing defensive infantry there every round. If the USSR places the maximum amount of infantry on both Eastern Siberia and North Korea every round, this adds up to 6 in total – effectively matching the 6 infantry that the UK can transport to India. This is why I’ve advocated for the “Operation: Underbelly” tactic of always placing these infantry, but always moving them through China towards southeast Asia.
(This is to say nothing of the US setting up their navy off the coast of Indochina, shuttling 2 infantry from the Philippines every round, as well as transporting infantry from Japan every other round. In short, the Soviets need to fight a quick, decisive war in this theatre – the long-term prospects are not in their favour.)
All of which dovetails into topics I’ve covered previously in this discussion thread:
@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
(Reusing this image for visual aid purposes)
Basic Mechanics: Paratroopers
Just due to the number of bomber aircraft that NATO has, this mechanic is particularly slanted against the USSR (who start with only one bomber.)
Paratroopers based in the UK can reach the following Soviet territories, with the bomber returning to the UK:
-> East Germany, Yugoslavia, Baltic States, Poland, Karelia, Komi
Paratroopers based in France can reach the following Soviet territories, with the bomber returning to France:
-> East Germany, Yugoslavia, Baltic States, Poland, Karelia, Komi, Romania, Belarus, Ukraine
Paratroopers based in Italy can reach the following Soviet territories, with the bomber returning to Italy:
-> East Germany, Yugoslavia, Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia
Now, this is not including things like dropping a paratrooper off and landing in a territory other than where the bomber started its turn; Norway for example helps put Belarus and Orel more easily into paratrooper range.
But if we look at the list of territories mentioned above, the problem starts to become pretty obvious:
Paratroopers subvert the protection that the “straits rule” can provide to the Soviets. This forces the USSR to backtrack and fix their supply lines, which causes big disruptions if you’re trying to keep as many offensive units as possible at the front lines. It also requires you to keep your infantry spread out across more territory.
By contrast, the USSR can only really hope to make distractions, through the use of paratroopers. From Turkey or Pakistan (assuming your bomber is protected enough, in those territories) you can cause mischief in Africa; likewise, you can spring surprises from Chinese territory, if your opponent isn’t mindful. It just doesn’t have the disruptive effect (particularly relative to the opportunity costs) that NATO paratroopers are able to create.
It is for these reasons that I recommend the paratrooper rule be amended; here are some possible ideas for how:
There is a somewhat historical precedent for the 3rd option, with the 2nd option (I feel) being more in line with the game’s setting, of the “Berlin Airlift” – whereby bombers were used as transport planes for supplies.
Variant Rule: Round Zero Breakthroughs
A while back, I had posted a topic on the idea of an “impulse turn” for the USSR, as sort of an expanded “round zero.” Admittedly, the implementation is a bit clunky (mostly for balance reasons) so I’m still trying to workshop it a bit. However, there is one aspect from those rules that I’d like to pluck out, since I think it could be applied independently from the impulse turn.
This is the idea of “round zero breakthroughs” – the Soviets being able to gain additional techs, and readjust the diplomatic situation – for some different options at the start of the game.
This allows for some interesting options:
The 2nd part of these added breakthroughs would be granting additional tech to the USSR:
What this does, in practical terms:
Since I’ve sort of come to the conclusion that nukes are the best counter to NATO’s navy, I’d probably want to revise this rule a bit, to reflect that; submarine tech should be treated as a fun option, rather than a viable balancing / war-winning feature. I haven’t really nailed down what that implementation should look like, just yet.
@the-janus A fourth option would include making the use of paratroopers without other land units present a researchable technology.
@jwlbigdog said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@the-janus A fourth option would include making the use of paratroopers without other land units present a researchable technology.
At that point, I would just staple it onto the Helicopter tech.
My own personal inclination is to just not allow paratroopers at all, but there might be other satisfactory solutions that I don’t want to shut the door on.
@the-janus I hope you could do a write up on Great War by Imp games? Im not versed in this game, but i do have it somewhere
@imperious-leader
I unfortunately am one of the few Imp gamers who never once played a game of The Great War. I think I had a copy of the rules, at one point, but as far as I can tell, I’ve lost them to the sands of time.
Not sure if @jwlbigdog @tacojohn or anyone else might have a copy buried somewhere…?
@the-janus I do still have a PDF copy of the 9.1 rules for TGW, even still have the CD for the map view file. Not sure where my copy of E&W is though…
I looked on my hard drive and I don’t have TGW rules saved there, that I could find. I may have a copy of the rules for TGW on the Imp Games E&W disc; will check that on Friday.
I do have the E&W rules scanned in and archived. I really enjoyed E&W when I was playing it regularly, circa 2000-2003.
@imperious-leader said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
Is there a better resolution of the map? I think id like to print a large format version
In all these years since I played E&W the first time, so maybe about 2000, I’ve not come across a high res digital version of the E&W map, other than the one that works with MapView. I even asked Imp about getting a copy from them, for a price, but I seem to recall they weren’t interested in making it available.
I think I may eventually try to recreate the E&W Cold War-era scenario on one of the more recent A&A maps - either the Anniversary map or maybe Siredblood’s or one of its offshoots - and work up the starting set ups, territorial control changes, etc. since finding new copies of the old E&W map seems unlikely. And then I’ll just use existing pieces I already have, plus some new pieces from HBG.
@tacojohn said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
I looked on my hard drive and I don’t have TGW rules saved there, that I could find. I may have a copy of the rules for TGW on the Imp Games E&W disc; will check that on Friday.
I do have the E&W rules scanned in and archived. I really enjoyed E&W when I was playing it regularly, circa 2000-2003.
And as it turns out, I do have the Imp Games The Great War disc, so I have the MapView module, the strategy guide, and the rules. Will dig into it tomorrow!
@tacojohn said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
I think I may eventually try to recreate the E&W Cold War-era scenario on one of the more recent A&A maps - either the Anniversary map or maybe Siredblood’s or one of its offshoots - and work up the starting set ups, territorial control changes, etc. since finding new copies of the old E&W map seems unlikely. And then I’ll just use existing pieces I already have, plus some new pieces from HBG.
As I’ve touched on previously in the thread, the E&W map looks like it’s a modification of the Xeno Games “World at War” map – some obvious Cold War changes are included, like east/west Germany, Yugoslavia/Greece, and North/South Korea.
Typically those changes are hard to come across in a map expressly meant to run a WWII game, but something like Bloodbath (IIRC? whatever the cool kids are playing these days…) might come close.
On a related topic, I always thought the TGW map would be handy for a WWII or even an E&W scenario. I liked the mechanic of infantry entrenching, that was something I had wanted to borrow and expand on, for a homebrew idea I had.
@jwlbigdog said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@the-janus I do still have a PDF copy of the 9.1 rules for TGW, even still have the CD for the map view file. Not sure where my copy of E&W is though…
I have the “2nd Edition rules” doc for E&W.
To make a short story long, I had misplaced my physical book, so I went to order a replacement – back when the Imp Games site was still up. They emailed me saying something like, “here, just take this instead, we don’t really want to have to ship anything.” But suffice it to say I explained that I wanted the physical book, so now I have both the physical and the electronic versions. P.S. to that story: I ended up finding where I had misplaced my original book – so now I actually have two physical copies of the rulebook.
@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@tacojohn said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
I think I may eventually try to recreate the E&W Cold War-era scenario on one of the more recent A&A maps - either the Anniversary map or maybe Siredblood’s or one of its offshoots - and work up the starting set ups, territorial control changes, etc. since finding new copies of the old E&W map seems unlikely. And then I’ll just use existing pieces I already have, plus some new pieces from HBG.
As I’ve touched on previously in the thread, the E&W map looks like it’s a modification of the Xeno Games “World at War” map – some obvious Cold War changes are included, like east/west Germany, Yugoslavia/Greece, and North/South Korea.
I, too, think the E&W map was based on the WaW map, but they cleaned it up a lot, and dressed it up a lot. A LOT.
@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
Typically those changes are hard to come across in a map expressly meant to run a WWII game, but something like Bloodbath (IIRC? whatever the cool kids are playing these days…) might come close.
Agreed…the geopolitical landscape changed quite a bit between 1940 (‘41, ‘42, ‘44) and 1948. I have IL’s Anniversary map and the BBR map in digital, though, so I want to sit down with them sometime and see which would be the best/easiest to work with.
@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
On a related topic, I always thought the TGW map would be handy for a WWII or even an E&W scenario. I liked the mechanic of infantry entrenching, that was something I had wanted to borrow and expand on, for a homebrew idea I had.
Yeah, it might be that. But right now, the only TGW map is in MapView, right? Wouldn’t the 1914 OOB map, IL’s double-size 1914 map, or Tjoek’s A&A 1914 map, the latter two of which are currently available as DLs here on this site, work almost as well as Imp’s TGW map, for physical F2F playing? (Realizing that if you’re focused on using MapView and not playing a physical map, TGW may be the better or only option.)
@tacojohn said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
Yeah, it might be that. But right now, the only TGW map is in MapView, right?
FWIW, I was able to dig this out of archive.org, from the Imp Games website; I probably have it saved somewhere, but it was just quicker to dig it out that way. (Obviously not high-res, but was freely available online, when the site was up.)
@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@tacojohn said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
Yeah, it might be that. But right now, the only TGW map is in MapView, right?
FWIW, I was able to dig this out of archive.org, from the Imp Games website; I probably have it saved somewhere, but it was just quicker to dig it out that way. (Obviously not high-res, but was freely available online, when the site was up.)
I’d forgotten how good that TGW map looked!!
