I’ve been thinking lately about common sense rules changes that might obviate the necessity many players feel in adding alternate rules to improve balance in the game. My crew recently (some would say finally) adopted the “Russia Restricted” rules to good results, but as many players improve they find they need more and more rules tweaks to make the game “fair”…
One thing I’ve long been an advocate of is a new Sea Zone in the central Atlantic. This SZ should separate East Canada and North Sea SZs and extend through the line between West Europe (Spain) SZ and East USA SZ. This would make the trip across the North Atlantic for USA TRs take an extra turn and open the USA fleet up for attack by Germany BEFORE they could invade. It also would prevent the illogic of a German FTR flying from West Europe to Hudson Bay and back in 1 turn. But the real advantage of this plan would be that it would give Germany some realistic chance that SUBs deployed in the North Atlantic would have some chance of doing some good for Germany. As it is no one I know even bothers with SUBs as Germany, which to me should be part of the flavor of playing the country…
The other idea I just came up with would solve a major peeve of mine (or at least ameliorate it)-- that is that the Allies just dominate Finland-Norway & the Baltic SZ! Germany held control of these important links to major raw-materials centers throughout the war, but in A & A the Allies controlling them is practically a foregone conclusion! The solution, I think would be to make Skagerrak ( the strait between Denmark & Norway) a “canal zone” just like the Suez–land forces can cross between West Europe and Finland/Norway while naval units cannot cross into Baltic Sea without owning BOTH sides. Air units would be unaffected (just like Suez). This would prevent units in Algeria from jumping over to Germany in 1 turn (unless the team held both sides), but more importantly would enable Germany to hold onto, and possibly launch attacks from, an important land/air base in Norway. That Strait is just so narrow, and the currents so (relatively) calm, that a flotilla of boats with even momentary naval superiority would have no problem navigating it. As it is, the territory almost might as well start with an Allied marker on it 'cuz it tends to go quickly, and serves virtually no strategic usefulness to Germany at all.
Just an idea…
Ozone27
I like the idea of the N.Atlantic SZ . . . it seems to make sense - i didn’t think Newfoundland was that close to G.B anyway, and the unterseeboats deserve more room to play.
Skagerrack doesn’t work for me tho’.
“One thing I’ve long been an advocate of is a new Sea Zone in the central Atlantic. This SZ should separate East Canada and North Sea SZs and extend through the line between West Europe (Spain) SZ and East USA SZ. This would make the trip across the North Atlantic for USA TRs take an extra turn and open the USA fleet up for attack by Germany BEFORE they could invade. It also would prevent the illogic of a German FTR flying from West Europe to Hudson Bay and back in 1 turn. But the real advantage of this plan would be that it would give Germany some realistic chance that SUBs deployed in the North Atlantic would have some chance of doing some good for Germany. As it is no one I know even bothers with SUBs as Germany, which to me should be part of the flavor of playing the country…”
I like this idea of an extra seazone. Is it just me or does the Atlantic feel a bit cramped? This would make the Allied merchantmarine more susceptible to German U-Boat attacks and give the Germans some breathing room from N. Africa, WE Europe, and Finland. However, the main problem I see is where does the British transport off E. Canada start off at? With that extra Sea Zone, it would be impossible for a German ftr. to reach it. The only alternative is a bmb, which would be much better needed somewhere else. I think if you make this change, you might want to place the transport in the new Sea Zone.
“The other idea I just came up with would solve a major peeve of mine (or at least ameliorate it)-- that is that the Allies just dominate Finland-Norway & the Baltic SZ! Germany held control of these important links to major raw-materials centers throughout the war, but in A & A the Allies controlling them is practically a foregone conclusion! The solution, I think would be to make Skagerrak ( the strait between Denmark & Norway) a “canal zone” just like the Suez–land forces can cross between West Europe and Finland/Norway while naval units cannot cross into Baltic Sea without owning BOTH sides. Air units would be unaffected (just like Suez). This would prevent units in Algeria from jumping over to Germany in 1 turn (unless the team held both sides), but more importantly would enable Germany to hold onto, and possibly launch attacks from, an important land/air base in Norway. That Strait is just so narrow, and the currents so (relatively) calm, that a flotilla of boats with even momentary naval superiority would have no problem navigating it. As it is, the territory almost might as well start with an Allied marker on it 'cuz it tends to go quickly, and serves virtually no strategic usefulness to Germany at all.”
I like this idea, though the Allies can then move all their stacks in Finland/Norway and launch a massive offensive at Western Europe, making German have to fight a two front war that it’s usually not use to unti lUSA commits to a D-Day invasion. .
Y’know crypt, TG, I hadn’t thought of that! Germany would have to split her defense forces between Western Europe and F/N, so neither terrotory would be well-enough defended. Germany would have to do this because, strategically if not economically, it’d make Norway as important as Western Europe. Germany’d have to be making a LOT of money to be able to beef up buth territories to the point where they were well-enough defended, and that’d leave precious little resources for fighting Russia.
There’s got to be a better way–the way it is now, F/N is just this wierd little island way out in the North Sea, undefendable by Germany and without resupply…
Ozone27
Y’know crypt, TG, I hadn’t thought of that! Germany would have to split her defense forces between Western Europe and F/N, so neither terrotory would be well-enough defended. Germany would have to do this because, strategically if not economically, it’d make Norway as important as Western Europe. Germany’d have to be making a LOT of money to be able to beef up buth territories to the point where they were well-enough defended, and that’d leave precious little resources for fighting Russia.
There’s got to be a better way–the way it is now, F/N is just this wierd little island way out in the North Sea, undefendable by Germany and without resupply…
Ozone27
But that’s part of the beauty of the game. I was thinking of starting a post similar to this, but it always seems that there is just “one more thing” that one would like to do in a turn. The F/N situation you mention relates to this. With RR - Germany can always move a tank out, attack with it, blah blah blah - infinite options. With the allies - the question is if/when to attack it (usually not “if”). The thing is, the sit just brings a few more questions to the game table (which makes things a little more interesting i think).
Well maybe you can help the German out with a change to your canal rule. What if German forces from WE can move in and out of Norway/Finland, but the Allies can’t? This might work just as well and force the Allies to rethink how to deploy their forces along the Eastern Front. Just a suggestion… :wink:
I ussually use the troops in Finland to help take Karelia early in the game, if you cripple the British navy it is feasible. However, it is difficult to keep Finland, though after Russia is contained/captured it is easy to send the troops to recapture/defend it, ussually as a precursor to an invasion of Britian.
@TG:
Well maybe you can help the German out with a change to your canal rule. What if German forces from WE can move in and out of Norway/Finland, but the Allies can’t? This might work just as well and force the Allies to rethink how to deploy their forces along the Eastern Front. Just a suggestion… :wink:
Yeh…it’s just not very elegant–like, WHY can the Germans do something the Allies can’t? I dunno…
Ozone27
@TG:
Well maybe you can help the German out with a change to your canal rule. What if German forces from WE can move in and out of Norway/Finland, but the Allies can’t? This might work just as well and force the Allies to rethink how to deploy their forces along the Eastern Front. Just a suggestion… :wink:
Yeh…it’s just not very elegant–like, WHY can the Germans do something the Allies can’t? I dunno…
Ozone27
'cuz the Germans blowed up all the infrastructure as they left . . .
blowed up REAL good!!!
woooo weeee!!!
WOOOHOO!!! YYEAAAHHH I’m into it!!!
Ozone27
“Yeh…it’s just not very elegant–like, WHY can the Germans do something the Allies can’t? I dunno…”
Elegant!? Let me tell ya, war isn’t about being “elegant.” So why can the Germans do something while the Allies can’t? Why is Russia Restricted? Why is their Axis Advantage? Why is there bidding involved? It’s all because we need away for the Germans and Japanese to have some sort of chance of winning this war. I know it’s not the most balanced thing, but at least we can do our best to help our Germans out. Hey, if you build it, someone will explain it. :roll:
@TG:
“Yeh…it’s just not very elegant–like, WHY can the Germans do something the Allies can’t? I dunno…”
Elegant!? Let me tell ya, war isn’t about being “elegant.” So why can the Germans do something while the Allies can’t? Why is Russia Restricted? Why is their Axis Advantage? Why is there bidding involved? It’s all because we need away for the Germans and Japanese to have some sort of chance of winning this war. I know it’s not the most balanced thing, but at least we can do our best to help our Germans out. Hey, if you build it, someone will explain it. :roll:
Good point!
I also hate Russia Restricted/Axis Advantage for this exact same reason. But you are very much correct–they are essentially necessary evils…
Ozone27
“Hey, if you build it, someone will explain it.”
now thats the funniest but truest comment ive seen in a long time, it soooo expresses what happens on message boards. mind if i barrow it for a sig?
“Hey, if you build it, someone will explain it.”
now thats the funniest but truest comment ive seen in a long time, it soooo expresses what happens on message boards. mind if i barrow it for a sig?
well, Yourbuttocks would prolly appreciate it about as much as Moses - and Moses, i’m sure, would love it if you did.
unless YB beats you to it.
Sure, you can go ahead with my little quote. The “Hey if you, build someone will explain it” is very true to life. I bet when someone “built” RR, AA, and bidding, they didn’t think of the historical consequences whatsoever, right?
But when you start thinking about it, some of it does make sense. Here, let me “explain”
So if you come up with you “Canal Rule,” I’m sure some A&A player someone will find a way to explain it.
I sure it’ll work out for the Germans being able to launch surprise inf/arm assualts into Finland/Norway with the support of the Luftwaffe. This forces UK/USA to be cautious when landing troops there. However, I think that this should be more of a “Germany only” type rule. As SUD pointed out, with the Allies also having the ability to Canal Cross, this forces Germany to keep troops stationed in the Fatherland, not pretty when you’re also trying to hold EE at the same time.
