For the issues of German Chiefs of Staff I’m going to take people from the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (Supreme Command of the Armed Forces) as well as people from the Oberkommando des Heeres (the Army High Command). Despite the names, the OKH was basically independent of the OKW until a few days before the end of the war. Thus I’m considering the following individuals for the Chief of Staff cards for Germany:
Wilhelm Keitel- Head of the OKW
Alfred Jodl- Keitel’s deputy
Reichsmarschall Hermann Goring- The Head of the Airforce (nominally under the OKW, had the highest rank in the German Military)
Grossadmiral Erich Raeder- the Head of the Navy through 1943 (nominally under the OKW)
Generalfeldmarschall Walther von Brauchitsch- Head of OKH through 1941
Adolf Hitler- Head of the OKH through 1945
General Franz Halder- Army Chief of Staff (under OKH head) from 1938 to 1942
General Kurt Zeitzler Army Chief of Staff (under OKH head) from 1942 to 1944Grossadmiral Karl Donitz was in charge of the Navy after Raeder, and General Heinz Guderian followed Zeitler as Army Chief of staff. I’m uncertain about whether to include them as regular commanders or as Chief of Staff Cards. Would it be more fun for Heinz to be commanding an individual army (he got so close to Moscow, after all) or giving him an army wide bonus?
The Guderian question is particularly vexing to me. I think he was a great commander, but I also think he was the best Chief of Staff that the army had. Plus, he basically invented Blitzkreig.
I like the idea of your cards (made a smaller deck for Classic a few years ago), but I really think that you should reconsider some of the names you mentioned above, not because of war crimes issues but because of their incompetence, like Keitel and Goering.
I like the division you made regarding the 3 levels for people, strategic/operational/tactical, what you could do probably would be that each person can have more than 1 skill. For instance, Guderian could play all the 3: as Inspector General for Armor he became responsible for tank design and improvement (strategic); as Chief of Staff he would improve movement of armor (operational); as Army commander any tanks would hit with a 4.
Anything else you guys would want to see? I’d like to get Russia and the German set in stone first before moving on to the UK, US, Japan, Italy and then revising the minors.
Industrial Redeployment (IC from Ukraine to Urals)
Shock Armies (or your Guards Divisions)
Deep Battle
Maskirovka
Siberian Divisions
an idea for a Russian event card is a winter war card to represent the Russian invasion of Finland before the Germans attacked. on the first round of combat Finnish units defend at a -1 and Russian attack at a +1. on the second round Finnish defend at a +1 and Russian attack at a -1 or regular. all rounds after that are normal. this would apply only once to a Russian attack on Finland.
I like the idea of your cards (made a smaller deck for Classic a few years ago), but I really think that you should reconsider some of the names you mentioned above, not because of war crimes issues but because of their incompetence, like Keitel and Goering.
Alternately, these could be treated as “disadvantage” cards, with negative effects, for offensive use against another player rather than to boost one’s own country. The same concept could apply to “negative techs” like the defective US torpedoes mentioned in another thread. So for example, if the player for Japan happens to get a “defective US torpedo” card, he could play this disadvantage card and thus negatively affect the US player. It’s the reverse concept of an “advantage” card – for example a Japanese Long Lance torpedo “positive tech” card which the player for Japan would play to positively affect himself.
I think that’s a very good idea. :-D having disadvantage cards will let you have advantages that are usually just luck in real life (like Hitlers refusal to move his tanks from upper France to Normandy allowed the allies to gain a foot holed which would not have happened if Hitler had moved his tanks.) the disadvantage cards could provide advantages over specific countries.
These are pretty cool. If you don’t already have this card, it could be a battle of the buldge type card. When German forces attack allied forces on Europe the allied forces don’t get to roll the first round. For Japan you could have a Pearl Harbor type card, where the first time you attack the U.S. navy, they don’t roll the first round. IDK for Italy cause i don’t really know to much about them.
let us know what you might be having trouble with ideas :-)
Hey guys, I just got laid off in the middle of my trip. Naturally, as I have no developed the powers of photosynthesis yet (on my to do list), I’ll probably have to devote some time looking for a job. Never the less I will discuss some of the ideas mentioned here.
CWO Marc- Glad you liked the Sorge suggestion. I don’t know how to really work the road of life in as Axis and allies doesn’t have encirclements. Certainly it was a major effort by the USSR and would be worthy of a card. Maybe it would work as something you could play if German forces threatened Leningrad by land.
Hobbes- While I agree with you on Goring’s General incompetence, he was still in charge of the Luftwaffe. At most I’d probably just give him a bonus for the purchasing of Tactical bombers (the type of project that he directed resources to as opposed to strategic bombers or interceptors). I don’t think Keitel was an idiot, just a sycophant. There is a difference. ;)
Your idea about having a single commander card have multiple roles, using Guderian as an example, is a pretty good one.
Re your other ideas:
Industrial Redeployment (IC from Ukraine to Urals)- is covered as an ability of one of the Soviet cabinet Ministers
Shock Armies (or your Guards Divisions)- Good idea! I could have some special token to put under Soviet Guard units. With a limit on how many you can have.
Deep Battle- Any interesting concept, but how would you depict it as a card? Also, wouldn’t you say the Doctrine more or less died with Tukachevsky a few years
before the game starts?
Maskirovka- I would consider this kind of tactics, but I’m wondering how to represent them in a card. Maybe something like a limited version of the lucy spy ring’s effects but that can be done every turn. Or maybe allow the Soviets to take their noncombat turn before their combat turn?
Siberian Divisions- is Covered by the Richard Sorge card. He was Stalin’s spy in Tokyo who was able to confirm that the Japanese were not going to help Hitler out, allowing for the release of those Siberian reinforcements.
Ghost One- The Winter war already happened before the game started. Russia actually controls some of Finland that they took in the war at the start of the game.
CWO Marc- Disadvantage cards is an interesting idea.
otahere34- Yes, some of the ideas you posted are already planned for card. :-D
Deep Battle- Any interesting concept, but how would you depict it as a card? Also, wouldn’t you say the Doctrine more or less died with Tukachevsky a few years
before the game starts?
Deep operations theory was behind Soviet strategy during the entire WW2 and up until 1991. Since it consists of conducting attacks on a wide front with the propose of hiding the actual objective (which is attacked by a 2nd and 3rd echelons of armies) you can replicate it with something like this: if the Soviet Union attacks 2 or more contiguous territories and wins it can choose to freely move the surviving units between those 2 territories during non-combat, but always leaving 1 unit behind.
Maskirovka- I would consider this kind of tactics, but I’m wondering how to represent them in a card. Maybe something like a limited version of the lucy spy ring’s effects but that can be done every turn. Or maybe allow the Soviets to take their noncombat turn before their combat turn?
It can be something like the UK’s Enigma National Advantage.
Deep Battle- Any interesting concept, but how would you depict it as a card? Also, wouldn’t you say the Doctrine more or less died with Tukachevsky a few years
before the game starts?Deep operations theory was behind Soviet strategy during the entire WW2 and up until 1991. Since it consists of conducting attacks on a wide front with the propose of hiding the actual objective (which is attacked by a 2nd and 3rd echelons of armies) you can replicate it with something like this: if the Soviet Union attacks 2 or more contiguous territories and wins it can choose to freely move the surviving units between those 2 territories during non-combat, but always leaving 1 unit behind.
Maskirovka- I would consider this kind of tactics, but I’m wondering how to represent them in a card. Maybe something like a limited version of the lucy spy ring’s effects but that can be done every turn. Or maybe allow the Soviets to take their noncombat turn before their combat turn?
It can be something like the UK’s Enigma National Advantage.
Your idea about deep operations is interesting, though you have to admit that as a result of the pruges the doctrine took a major setback and the country had to basically relearn it during the war. Though Operation uranus is certainly a good example of that theory being put into practice. I could see it making for a good card though.
Re Maskirovka- yes, it could be something like that. Maybe it or Lucy could be a one time effect while the other can be used more permanently.
Both are good ideas.
Your mention of Deep operations and Maskirovka has given me another idea. What if I had “Doctrine” cards for each country. You could only have one doctrine at a time.
Your mention of Deep operations and Maskirovka has given me another idea. What if I had “Doctrine” cards for each country. You could only have one doctrine at a time.
I’m not sure that you’ll find doctrines for every country.
Your mention of Deep operations and Maskirovka has given me another idea. What if I had “Doctrine” cards for each country. You could only have one doctrine at a time.
I don’t know if this would qualify as a doctrine, but the Americans and the British had a lot of disagreements from 1942 to 1944 over their strategic and operational philosophies. The British favoured things like indirect blows around the fringes of occupied Europe (for example Churchill’s depiction of Italy as the “soft underbelly of the crocodile” – which, considering how mountainous Italy is, turned out to be naive when the Allies invaded there) and long, thin, rapier-like strikes like Operation Market-Garden (which failed). The Americans preferred head-on attacks like the Operation Overlord landings in Normandy, and advances along a broad front like the drive towards the Rhine in 1944-1945 – a method of warfare I’ve heard called the “Ulysses S. Grant approach”.
Ghost One- The Winter war already happened before the game started. Russia actually controls some of Finland that they took in the war at the start of the game.
yes you are right i forgot it happened right before the war
best of LUCK in your job search :-(
i have a i think a great idea, it seems that there will be a lot of cards for each country because of all the different card types and from what dannyboy said at first that each country will choose one card at the beginning and must purchase additional cards that you probably won’t get to use very many cards each game. but my idea is instead of choosing one card at the beginning of the game each country will separate the Puppets, Cabinet Ministers, Commanders, National Advantages, and Doctrine cards into stacks and choose one from each. when they are done all the cards are shuffled together (except the 5 you choose off the top) for the game stack for that country. if they do this then it could represent the government for each country at the beginning of the war. this way you start the game with your own set up and get to use the cards right at the begging. also i thought that it would be better to instead of buying new cards with ipcs you could buy them with points earned at the purchase units faze by counting how many territories you have with an ipc value and dividing by (2 or 3?) and add that to the ones you may already have and that is how much you have to spend on cards (also maybe you can earn one every time you win a battle). these points would rep public opinion of the war or maybe how the government is handling the war at home and abroad.
i just thought of this and its late so there might be some things that don’t sound right.
Ghost one, you would just take their ipc income from the income tracker. You don’t have to count the territories with ipcs on them. Unless you want to count ALL the territories that a country controls.
@CWO:
Your mention of Deep operations and Maskirovka has given me another idea. What if I had “Doctrine” cards for each country. You could only have one doctrine at a time.
I don’t know if this would qualify as a doctrine, but the Americans and the British had a lot of disagreements from 1942 to 1944 over their strategic and operational philosophies. The British favoured things like indirect blows around the fringes of occupied Europe (for example Churchill’s depiction of Italy as the “soft underbelly of the crocodile” – which, considering how mountainous Italy is, turned out to be naive when the Allies invaded there) and long, thin, rapier-like strikes like Operation Market-Garden (which failed). The Americans preferred head-on attacks like the Operation Overlord landings in Normandy, and advances along a broad front like the drive towards the Rhine in 1944-1945 – a method of warfare I’ve heard called the “Ulysses S. Grant approach”.
“indirect approach” would work as a British Doctrine
“Superior Firepower” would work for the Americans
Blitzkreige and Volksstrum would work for Gemany
However, it is probably better not to have a Doctrine card type and just have these type of things as"national advantage" cards
“indirect approach” would work as a British Doctrine
“Superior Firepower” would work for the Americans
Blitzkreige and Volksstrum would work for GemanyHowever, it is probably better not to have a Doctrine card type and just have these type of things as"national advantage" cards
A few comments:
“indirect approach” would work as a British Doctrine […] just have these type of things as"national advantage" cards<<
Well, “indirect approach” works well as a description of the British doctrine…but whether that doctrine itself worked (and thus whether it counts as a national advantage) is another question. I suppose it worked in the sense that it made prudent use of Britain’s limited military manpower. But from the American viewpoint it wasted resources on secondary theatres instead of using them to seek a decisive campaign where it mattered.
“Superior Firepower” would work for the Americans <<
Yes. Something more precise might be better (since no country would argue about the advantages of superior firepower), but I can’t think of any suitable term.
A related note: in his book Why the Allies Won, Richard Overy argues that the British and American strategic bombing campaigns reflected a British and American preference for methods of warfare which were technologically-oriented and capital-intensive. This suited them, since they were both highly industrialized and scientifically advanced countries (and capitalist nations too, as the Russians would probably have commented.) The USSR, on the other hand, had a more labour-intensive approach to warfare, reflecting the fact that it was less industrialized and that it had a larger population.
Blitzkreige and Volksstrum would work for Gemany <<
I’d recommend splitting those apart, and perhaps only keeping Blitzkrieg if you have to just pick one. The Volksstrum was basically a force of last resort which was put together from manpower scraps in the last phase of the war, when Germany was on the ropes. It actually resembled in some ways the British Home Guard, which was cobbled together after the British Army had had to leave most of its equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk and Britain was facing the prospect of a Nazi invasion. Blitzkrieg was the method of warfare which won Germany its early victories, so it’s much more of a national advantage (and much more of an operational doctrine) than the Volksstrum. (A related concept is the “Keil und Kessel” method which was one of the signature tactics of Blitzkrieg operations.)
i agree, the doctrines are different from the national advantages in some cases. they are like the scorched earth policy, you have it as a national advantage but it would be more suited as a doctrine. the national advantages could be more physically representing like heavy tanks or bombers you have that the enemy doesn’t rather than policies or doctrines.
here are the definition of each. i hope this doesn’t look bad giving the definitions.
Advantage-any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially favorable to success, interest, or any desired end.
Doctrine-a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government
CWO Marc- If I did doctrines as a separate type of card, countries would only be allowed to have one doctrine in play at a time.
Ghost One- While I see your point there is the issue that it’d be very difficult to come up with multiple doctrines for each country. However we might make that work if we include things like air or naval doctrines and if some doctrines could be used by multiple countries (like Fleet in Being as a naval doctrine available for several countries, for instance).
Okay here are some basic doctrine ideas based on the US
Combined Arms- Basically McNair’s baby. I’d say give some sort of combined arms bonus, for having, artillery, infantry, mechanized infantry, and Armor, and aircraft taking part in a battle. Also allow infantry and artillery to blitz when paired with a tank.
Superior Firepower - Use the overwhelming abundance in material and munitions to bomb the hell out of the enemy. Perhaps preventing units killed by artillery or bombers during the first cycle of combat from retaliating?
Carrier Group- Obviously this one would probably be shared with Japan and give bonuses of some kind to Carriers.
Amphibious Operations- Basically the marine national advantage from the 2004 game.
Air Superiority- Don’t know exactly how to represent this but consider events like the battle of the bulge. Once the weather cleared the American air force made it impossible for German vehicles to operate during the day. Maybe if you have more air units involved in a land combat enemy armor, artillery, and mechanized units couldn’t attack/defend during the first cycle of combat?
Aerial Convoy Defense- Would represent the use of airbases to protect convoys against subs. Basically give planes the ability to attack subs without a destroyer present.
Daytime Strategic Bombing - Something to give additional damage to American bombardments.
The British, by contrast may have a Nighttime bombing doctrine that would reduce the damage done but render the bombers immune from enemy interception.
Germany may have something like a night fighters doctrine that could undermine that advantage, but if they are using that then they aren’t getting the benefits of, say, Blitzkrieg.
These are just a few examples. Since only one Doctrine card would be allowed at a time, each country (besides China) would at least need 1 land, air, and naval doctrine to choose from. the Majors would need more, of course. That way doctrines would be a major choice. Will Germany really try to contest control of the seas and skies or will she focus on Russia. Will America focus on its air force (okay, that was technically part of the army then), its navy, or its army?
Obviously if I go this route and add doctrines as a unique card, I should probably take the suggestion of allowing people to draw one of each card type. Or maybe just let them draw five cards of any type at the start. America, for instance, wouldn’t have as many puppet cards as the Axis.
I’m still not certain if its worth trying to come up with a handful of doctrines for each country or just keep these as national advantages.
