Thanks for the ideas!
"East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion
-
@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
I’m thinking that probably the best way to break into “Middle Earth” as NATO is by applying pressure through the Mediterranean
@Ragnell804 and @The_Good_Captain had played a couple games against each other, which I got to look through the MapView files for, and see the aftermath.
Generally speaking, the idea played by TGC as NATO could be summed up as: US is the strongest NATO power, and Siberia is where the Soviets are the most vulnerable, therefore the US should project NATO’s strongest attack in this region.
This tended to leave NATO very weak in Europe, often losing Italy and leaving France very lightly defended. The sticking point was the potential of early Soviet spy purchases; a large stack of tanks in Yugoslavia, coupled with Switzerland being influenced by the USSR, could lead to the fall of France.
Now, the conclusion that TGC took from this situation was: “China First” for NATO diplomacy is dead
This is to say, that NATO needs to use any diplomatic successes it can muster in influencing neutrals such as Spain and Switzerland, in order to protect France and carry on with a US “Pacific First” strategy, militarily.
As you can see from the topic quoted at the top, I’m coming at NATO’s strategy from a different direction: the floating bridge / Middle Earth / Orient Express sort of ethos.
What this essentially boils down to, is WE and UK funneling troops to Italy to land in Turkey, and link up with the UK forces coming from India (and surrounding territories). Opening the Turkish straits also puts pressure on the USSR’s back line, because it means Romania, Ukraine, and Georgia can also be placed under threat.
As you can probably deduce, this means that in this strategy the UK and WE are providing most of the offense for NATO – which means the US needs to pick up the slack defensively.
The classic shuck-shuck still exists in E&W, and is fast and easy to set up, allowing the US to dump infantry in France for defense, while their allies push forward to Italy. In the Pacific, the US still needs to provide a credible threat in order to stretch the Soviet units out, but should pivot to supporting India if they aren’t able to make an offensive landing in the east.
Now, I had been developing this “more 50/50” US strategy well before I saw the games between Ragnell and TGC – it was something I tested using the Classic map in TripleA. But what this strategy ultimately does is provide an answer to their perceived problem of a Soviet diplomatic focus on Europe.
If the US has a huge presence in France, this means they can potentially be in a position to stomp out Spain (if the USSR influences them) and use the territory for their own; combined with a strong WE+UK force in Italy, influencing Switzerland also becomes untenable.
The reason I prefer this angle, is because it’s a repeatable counter that doesn’t rely on RNG – such as countering Soviet spies with NATO spies, where IMO the USSR has a distinct advantage; they get the free counter-intelligence roll every round that NATO has a spy on the board, and their spies go first.
The other contention I’ve made (such as in our E&W discussion on YouTube) is that the Soviets can lose the war from the Pacific, but they can’t win it from there. To me, that’s what makes it viable for NATO to downplay the Pacific in their overall strategy, as long as they are making attacks and pushing the Soviets back elsewhere.
NATO needs to be contesting Soviet gains as soon as rd2, if they’re going to be competitive and keep their opponent’s income down. IMO, the options for WE are to stack in France and try to contest West Germany and/or Norway, or to stack in Italy and try to contest Greece and/or Turkey. Aside from the potential that the straits provide, the Mediterranean is the obvious central point for WE units from Indochina to rally with the other units around Europe – rather than trying to move ships all the way around to the North Sea. Likewise, the UK starts with one transport in the Atlantic, one in the Mediterranean, one in the Indian Ocean, and one in the Pacific – again, the Mediterranean is the obvious central point to rally, once the UK has scooped up their units from Australia in the east, and Canada + Iceland in the west.
-
One adjunct to this strategy that I would like to mention is the notion of what I generally refer to as “double duty”
What I mean by this, is getting maximum defensive value out of your units, while also having them in a position to be an offensive threat.
For example, WE infantry placed in Italy serve the purpose of defending a frontline territory when it is not their turn, but can also be used to attack amphibiously around the Mediterranean when it is their turn.
Compare this with a strategy such as WE placing infantry in Madagascar and Mozambique, to shuttle into Pakistan; the territories these units are being placed in generally aren’t under threat, and therefore are not getting that immediate defensive value.
-
Opening Purchases for Western Europe / Overall Strategies
I’ve been thinking about this topic a bit, and have used a few different options in recent games, so I decided to lay things out.
Starting with 32 IPCs, here are your basic options:
- 10 inf [save 2]
- 9 inf, 1 arm
- 8 inf, 1 trn
- 7 inf, 1 spy [save 1]
- 4 inf, 4 arm
Spying Game (7 inf, 1 spy [save 1])
Generally the reason to buy a spy as Western Europe, is to essentially give the NATO team one more bullet in the cylinder, in terms of countering whatever they presume the Soviet spies are trying to do – whether that be counter-intel, influencing China, or trying to get minor neutrals on-side to beef up Soviet attacks (particularly in Europe). Now, this last one is, IMO, the worst use for the WE spy in particular.Think of it this way: if WE gains Spain, that essentially means they get enough IPCs to place 1 more infantry, per round; if the US or UK gets Spain, that means they can place 3 more infantry directly onto the continent – never mind adding an industrial complex, if they so choose. I could potentially see WE influencing spaces like Thailand or Ethiopia in order to give a tiny, safe income boost and to better facilitate the movement of UK troops towards India, but those still wouldn’t be my first choice on a spying success, as WE.
The other issue is that once that spy gets killed, WE doesn’t really have the means to replace it; after rd1, you’re generally only putting out 7-8 infantry per turn, and I feel like placing 3 less than that to replace a killed spy just isn’t worth it. YMMV.
Mare Nostrum (8 inf, 1 trn)
My opinion is that you can play WE in two broad ways: as France, or as Italy. (If there’s a 3rd option, it’s basically “playing as Indochina” and supporting the UK in India – more on that later.)Playing as Italy essentially means trying to dominate the Mediterranean – in close co-operation with the UK. You want your infantry in Italy for defense, but also so you can amphibiously assault Greece or Turkey, using a shuck-shuck. If you move your transport from Indochina to Pakistan on rd1, it can then reach the Cyprus SZ on rd2, potentially adding 2 inf from Indochina to an amphibious assault into Turkey, coming from the other direction; if the USSR attacked/influenced Iran, you can also fly your fighter from Indochina over, to add to the attack.
With 4 transports in the Mediterranean, WE can pack quite a punch – and because they own Greece and Turkey, liberating these territories themselves means more cash on hand. It’s also worth mentioning that, as a 4-IPC territory with an industrial complex, Italy can put out 8 infantry every round (enough to fill 4 transports) as long as you have the cash to do it. (Worth noting, if you are only down Norway, West Germany, and Greece, your income will be 24 – exactly enough for 8 infantry. This is why liberating Turkey can be so potentially lucrative, in addition to opening new lanes of advance.)
The reason to not go this route is if the USSR positions planes close to the Mediterranean, at the end of their first turn. In this case, it’s my preference to scatter the fleets out of range of Soviet planes; the riskier alternative is to send the lone WE sub with the planes from France to try and take out the Black Sea fleet (the fighter having to land on the UK carrier, afterwards.)
If you choose to gather all of NATO’s navy around the Algeria SZ or Italy SZ to beef up your defense against a Soviet naval attack, the problem is that either your transport from Portugal will be out of position, or the UK carrier won’t be positioned to help with the Turkey attack – meaning on WE2 you might have to settle for attacking Greece, or not attacking in the Mediterranean at all.
Spend it All! (9 inf, 1 arm)
As the name implies, the reason to go this route is that it allows you to spend all of your money. The tank gives you a little extra offense on land; ultimately, what you need to quickly determine is whether your tanks should be in Italy or in France, to counter-attack Yugoslavia or West Germany, respectively. If the Soviets have a bad S1, they may be weak enough in West Germany to be counter-attacked right away, but generally Yugoslavia will be the easier target on WE1. However, because of its central location, often the USSR will opt to drop their stack down in Yugoslavia after the first round, so WE needs to make sure their tanks are positioned where they can actually strike back, long term.
Armor Doctrine (4 inf, 4 arm)
Since WE is generally not ever going to be richer than they are at the start of the game, WE1 is when you need to make your expensive purchases – if at all.Going with this option essentially gives you 2 less units on defense than if you go with all infantry, but the offensive power can be particularly potent against a weak West Germany position for the Soviets. Ultimately, the trick is to inflict as many casualties in as few rounds of combat as possible, and to spare as many of your own infantry from your attacks as you can manage. That’s how you gain the economic advantage in this dead-zone management microcosm. Now, you could position your armor and infantry in Italy (particularly in a strategy where the US and UK are bankrolling France’s defense) but overall I view this strategy more as a “playing as France” type of move.
The other consideration when playing as France, is what is your secondary target (if your primary target is West Germany)? Two distinct options present themselves:
- Greece
- Norway
Now, either territory can easily be within shuck-shuck range of France (either in the Mediterranean, or in the North Sea / Barents Sea, respectively) however, a fighter stationed in France is more easily able to hit Norway, and return back to France for defense – which is why I would recommend this tact, when playing as France. In either case, you will need to coordinate naval coverage with your allies, so make sure to take that into consideration. Also, a single US transport can feed 2 infantry from Iceland into Norway every round, in addition to any support the UK can quickly provide, from their capitol.
Read and React (10 inf [save 2])
Obviously, this is the generalist approach. I would argue that if you plan to support the UK in India by placing 2 (or even 1) infantry in Indochina, this is probably the build you’re going to use – not to say that you couldn’t use one of the other high-inf options. With that in mind, you can also use this build if you’re just going to focus on defending Europe; maybe the Soviets don’t give you a good read one way or the other, but you know (for example) that you don’t want to drop down an extra transport because there are too many planes circling around.If you are going for an India focus as WE, my suggestion is to use your transports to immediately route your tanks through Africa. From Algeria to Sudan is 2 spaces, so with the right planning and maneuvering of transports, you can get a tank from France to Pakistan or India by WE3. Sending the starting tanks from both Italy and France (plus getting the infantry from Africa over to Pakistan) will keep your transports occupied for a while.
As such, you need to decide what you’re going to do with your transports afterwards: are you going to pivot to “playing as Italy”, or do you want to use Mozambique and Madagascar to shuck 2 additional infantry to Pakistan every round? You’ll need to have a good read of the map, and know what options will work for you. (Alternatively, if you went the “Spend it All!” route, shipping a 3rd tank over might give you an extra round to decide on your next move.)
One thing I like to do when I focus on assisting India as WE, is to send the bomber (with a paratrooper) to Pakistan on WE1; you can then send the bomber to New Guinea on WE2, and bring the infantry from there, as a paratrooper back to Pakistan (or India) on WE3. This might not be the best use of your bomber (so feel free to do something more aggressive, if the opportunity arises) but it does free up your transport from trying to pick up that lone infantry, FWIW.
-
@barnee
re: E&W in TripleAI sent a message to @Argothair but I got no response… So I figured I might as well ping you and post in the thread, to see if that helps.
Recently I’ve been poking around with the TripleA version of Revised (a map that’s much closer to E&W than most other ones) and an idea occurred to me:
Would it be at all worthwhile to just bolt the “rules” from the 3rd Edition/Iron Blitz version in TripleA onto a different map (such as the Revised map) to get something approximating E&W? Is such a thing even possible, or is it harder than just doing it all from scratch and getting it exactly right?
Likewise, would it be easier to start with the Europe 1940 map, and rewrite the mechanics to fit E&W? Or is there too much code baked into the maps themselves, already?
-
Hi Janus
yea I think you should be able to rework the code. It would take a fair amount of work most likely.
The “Pact of Steel 2” xml explains how to go about it. Also here’s a link to the map making thread at triplea https://forums.triplea-game.org/category/28/map-making
-
I have started on creating a mod for TripleA based upon East & West. You can follow my progress at https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/4059/a-new-year-and-a-new-mod?_=1738631120040
My plan is to starting by implemented East & West rules on an existing map and then using the East & West map, thereby creating two mods. I see people have tried the Classic, Revised and Global maps. I was thinking of the Anniversary map or the Big World map from TripleA.
Any assistance or comments would be appreciated.
-
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
My plan is to starting by implemented East & West rules on an existing map and then using the East & West map, thereby creating two mods. I see people have tried the Classic, Revised and Global maps. I was thinking of the Anniversary map or the Big World map from TripleA.
As was mentioned here and there a few times, it appears to me that the map most closely resembles Xeno Games’ World at War (particularly the delineation of sea zones); if a map and/or module exists somewhere for that game, that would probably be the best place to start. Otherwise, of the A&A maps I’m familiar with, I’d say Revised is probably the closest; the ruleset obviously most closely resembles Classic, but there are also a few W@W-isms.
My hunch is that some of the technologies (and maybe the spying) will be the hardest to implement; the other hang-ups (also mentioned earlier in this thread) would be not allowing allies to land planes in newly-captured territories, as well as the ‘universal’ infantry placement rule. Also, tanks being able to move on non-combat and combat movement is pretty unique, for A&A; the submarine rules were also a bit of a stumbling block, since they’re not entirely clear.
Were there any specific rules questions you had about E&W?
-
@RogerCooper @VictoryFirst is a good reference.
East and West absolutely deserves its own TripleA and can vouch that if created will get a respectable amount of play.
Let me know if you run into any snags. @VictoryFirst can probably help answer technical questions.
-
@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
My plan is to starting by implemented East & West rules on an existing map and then using the East & West map, thereby creating two mods. I see people have tried the Classic, Revised and Global maps. I was thinking of the Anniversary map or the Big World map from TripleA.
As was mentioned here and there a few times, it appears to me that the map most closely resembles Xeno Games’ World at War (particularly the delineation of sea zones); if a map and/or module exists somewhere for that game, that would probably be the best place to start. Otherwise, of the A&A maps I’m familiar with, I’d say Revised is probably the closest; the ruleset obviously most closely resembles Classic, but there are also a few W@W-isms.
My hunch is that some of the technologies (and maybe the spying) will be the hardest to implement; the other hang-ups (also mentioned earlier in this thread) would be not allowing allies to land planes in newly-captured territories, as well as the ‘universal’ infantry placement rule. Also, tanks being able to move on non-combat and combat movement is pretty unique, for A&A; the submarine rules were also a bit of a stumbling block, since they’re not entirely clear.
Were there any specific rules questions you had about E&W?
There is World at War mod for TripleA, but the map does not resemble East & West.
The tech rules and the espionage rules would not be possible to implement in TripleA. What I was thinking of doing was using the WW2V3 (Anniversary Edition) tech model and giving some free tech tokens out to each nation.
You would select the type of advance you are looking for. Each of technologies would be padded with free units to prevent overly fast advances. For example,
Submarine Technology
- Snorkels (subs immune to air attacks)
- Nuclear Power (subs move 3)
- Cruise Missile (subs bombard at 2)
- Receive 1 free submarine
- Receive 2 free submarines
- Receive 3 free submarines
Spies would be implemented as a technology list. The diplomacy would have all 3 major neutrals and the 14 minor neutrals. If you receive that “tech”, you gain control of the neutral (as long as it still is neutral).
I would implement nuclear weapons using the rules from the “The Grand War”.
-
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
Submarine Technology
- Snorkels (subs immune to air attacks)
- Nuclear Power (subs move 3)
- Cruise Missile (subs bombard at 2)
- Receive 1 free submarine
- Receive 2 free submarines
- Receive 3 free submarines
It’d be interesting if you could also code in Nuclear Subs being able to go under the ice cap? Maybe there’s a way to model it as a strait/canal, to make that work.
The problem that immediately jumps off the page to me, is that you couldn’t throw the two types of A-bombs into a tech pool, and have it work out with just random rolling; I assume that might tie into this comment?
I would implement nuclear weapons using the rules from the “The Grand War”.
I’m not familiar with how that game does it. I also would have to assume that the nuclear complication table is off the… well, table.
Spies would be implemented as a technology list. The diplomacy would have all 3 major neutrals and the 14 minor neutrals. If you receive that “tech”, you gain control of the neutral (as long as it still is neutral).
From my experience with Europe 1940, I think you would have to treat each major neutral similarly to how the “true neutrals” are modeled, in that game i.e. declaring war on one declares war on all. Activating the neutral units properly RAW is going to be the real problem, I’d imagine – just based on how in A&A games everything is dependent on moving units into those territories, whereas in E&W it’s not. The other thing you could maybe do is represent the income provided by the major neutrals as “National Objectives” that you achieve through spying… assuming there’d be a way to code those two systems to interact together.
-
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
There is World at War mod for TripleA, but the map does not resemble East & West.
(Credit to @thrasher1 from his old Axis & Allies page: https://web.archive.org/web/20011122195430/http://www.wargamer.com:80/axisandallies/ce/xeno/waw/scenarios/waw_scenario_warsaw_page1.html )
I know you specified the version that’s in TripleA, but just for comparison (and since I don’t believe I’ve mentioned it in this thread before) here’s a mock-up of the W@W map, modified to include things like north/south Korea, as well as Yugoslavia/Greece:
…and here’s my edit of it in MSpaint, for a mock-up of E&W:
(For those who’ve been following the thread a while, I also brought up this exact example, outlining the similarities in our “podcast” episode, with @The_Good_Captain : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4KrQ1V9IcI )
-
@The-Janus Your MSpaint version is good starting point for me.
-
@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@RogerCooper said in “East & West” by Imp Games - Discussion:
It’d be interesting if you could also code in Nuclear Subs being able to go under the ice cap? Maybe there’s a way to model it as a strait/canal, to make that work.I could add an ice cap territory. However, I doubt that it would have a significant effect on play
The problem that immediately jumps off the page to me, is that you couldn’t throw the two types of A-bombs into a tech pool, and have it work out with just random rolling; I assume that might tie into this comment?
I would implement nuclear weapons using the rules from the “The Grand War”.
I’m not familiar with how that game does it. I also would have to assume that the nuclear complication table is off the… well, table.>
TripleA can support tech trees. The nuclear complication table is off the table. As the Soviets would also start with fission bombs, there is not much point to creating a tech tree.From my experience with Europe 1940, I think you would have to treat each major neutral similarly to how the “true neutrals” are modeled, in that game i.e. declaring war on one declares war on all. Activating the neutral units properly RAW is going to be the real problem, I’d imagine – just based on how in A&A games everything is dependent on moving units into those territories, whereas in E&W it’s not. The other thing you could maybe do is represent the income provided by the major neutrals as “National Objectives” that you achieve through spying… assuming there’d be a way to code those two systems to interact together.>
The major neutrals would be handled as separate countries that could be allied with. I am not going to try handle the multi-step process of getting neutrals, you either get them or you don’t. However, rolls on the diplomacy table are more likely to get minor neutrals than major neutrals.
An interesting question is what to do if you gain the support of a major neutral that is already allied with your opponent. Does it?
- Have no effect
- Go back to neutrality
- Flip immediately to the new alliance
All of these are interesting possibilities.
-
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
you either get them or you don’t
You’re going to have to unpack what you mean by that.
If China is allowed to effectively be a 16 IPC swing on a random die roll, I’m calling bullshit.When you “get” a major neutral, would you get all of their units/territories? Or if they can still be influenced back to the other side, are you basically suggesting we compress the 9-point influence scale down to just 3 (positive, neutral, negative)?
-
@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
you either get them or you don’t
You’re going to have to unpack what you mean by that.
If China is allowed to effectively be a 16 IPC swing on a random die roll, I’m calling bullshit.When you “get” a major neutral, would you get all of their units/territories? Or if they can still be influenced back to the other side, are you basically suggesting we compress the 9-point influence scale down to just 3 (positive, neutral, negative)?
Yes, you are correct I am proposing effective a 3 point scale.
An alternative would be variable entry. China always comes on the Soviet side, OAS on the NATO side. The Arab League would still be random.
As this a mod, I could have different scenarios with different rules.
Looking at the East & West rules, it seems unlikely that you could ever bring a major neutral over. You only have a 1/6 chance to move it one step and your opponent can deploy spies to counter you.
As E&W is set in 1948, the Chinese Civil War is still raging and a Nationalist victory possible.
-
I think its best for the mod to function with basic unit attack and defense values and just use the forum dice roller and edit mode for the neutrals, spying and tech.
Just having that would be leagues better than what we are currently using, lol.
-
@The_Good_Captain Tech will be optional
-
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
Looking at the East & West rules, it seems unlikely that you could ever bring a major neutral over. You only have a 1/6 chance to move it one step and your opponent can deploy spies to counter you.
Have you considered the knock-on effects of changing those mechanics?
Would you want China and OAS to become active powers?
Or would they just swing all their income, units, and territories to USSR/USA in one dice roll?Genuinely curious as to what you’re thinking this implementation would look like.
-
@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
Have you considered the knock-on effects of changing those mechanics?
Would you want China and OAS to become active powers?
Or would they just swing all their income, units, and territories to USSR/USA in one dice roll?I was assuming they would become active powers on their own. But that is not the only possibility. You could have them join the power recruiting them.
The problem with E&W rules for neutrals is that they are just passive sources of income, that can also be attacked. That is not very interesting.
We could also try eliminating major neutrals entirely. The major neutrals could be handled like minor neutrals and recruited through technology or events. That is arguably more realistic and probably more interesting with wars breaking out in unexpected places.
-
@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
The problem with E&W rules for neutrals is that they are just passive sources of income, that can also be attacked. That is not very interesting.
I think you’d just be swapping one problem for another, because making them function in more “interesting” ways would throw the game balance completely out the window. Also, the USSR can attack any neutrals at any time, but NATO can only attack major neutrals, and only if they are providing their full income to the USSR. So generally speaking there isn’t a military solution to the passive income provided by major neutrals.
Without getting long-winded about it, China basically serves as a buffer for the USSR, keeping the US and UK to the perimeter; if the Americans could just land anywhere along the Pacific coast of Asia, that’s a whole different ball-game – and not in a way that’s good for the USSR.
The other function of major neutrals is to prevent the game from being bogged down with roughly double the number of minor neutrals on the map. Having them function as a bloc and then tying them into things like nuclear complications, controlling the Suez Canal, and North Korea rules are what make the system really shine. This also circles back to the rule allowing the USSR to attack neutrals; there’s more of a downside if attacking Iraq means that Syria, Jordan, et al. also turn against you. If you get rid of the Arab League as a major neutral, I imagine the USSR would start gobbling up the middle east piecemeal in probably every game. (And I have to imagine the major neutral mechanic is an outgrowth of the original designers having tested these kinds of strategies, and found them to break the game.)
If you wanna rebalance the game around an “active China” paradigm, be my guest – but depending on things like turn order, they either get dogpiled, or they win the entire continent pretty early on. These are the types of bog-standard house rules that people immediately tried once they got their hands on the game 25 odd years ago, and couldn’t get to work. I remember those discussions, trust me.
E&W is much more about ‘politics’ mechanics than any other A&A game, full stop, and basically the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you swap out one mechanic for something you think is more interesting, that doesn’t immediately mean it’ll be better or that the game will even still function properly from a balance perspective. Trying to reinvent the China rules is probably the biggest hornet’s nest you could kick, and it’s not much less perilous to mess around with how the Arab League works, either.
Honestly, if you feel the need to strip things down, but maintain the flavour of it, I can definitely give you some suggestions in that regard – I’ve written an E&W scenario for Risk. But I’d lean more towards major neutrals not having any mechanics for getting active, than to add mechanics making that easier to do.
Suggested Topics
