"East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion

@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:

• [unchanged] territories with more than 1 WE infantry start with 1 less WE infantry (France, Italy, Norway, West Germany, Greece, Turkey, Indochina)
• UK and US territories with more than 1 UK infantry start with half as many UK infantry (UK, Iceland, India, New South Wales, South Africa)
• US territories with more than 1 US infantry start with 1 less US infantry (East US, West US, Iceland, South Korea, Japan, Philippines)
• remove any NATO fighters from territories with an IPC value of 2, which do not also contain an armor unit (Iceland, Indochina, New South Wales)
• remove any NATO submarines based off the coasts of territories with an IPC value of 2 (Iceland, New South Wales)

The Soviets also receive the following boosts; these would be in lieu of the 20 IPC “rapid mobilization” bonus:

• Soviet territories with an IPC value of 2 or more, and with at least 1 starting infantry, each gain one additional infantry (East Germany, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Karelia, Belarus, Ukraine, Orel, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, East Siberia, Kamchatka, North Korea)
• Soviet territories with an IPC value of 2, which contain an industrial complex, each gain 1 fighter and 1 cruiser (Karelia, East Siberia)
• other Soviet territories which contain an industrial complex each gain 1 heavy armor (Ukraine, Russia)

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:

• Reduced starting forces for NATO:
• • cutting down the numbers of units in India, Indochina, and New South Wales gives the Soviets a more reasonable opportunity at success in this theatre, without having to commit so many of their limited resources.
• The proposed overhaul to the rules regarding China:
• • the USSR would always be allowed to move units through Chinese territories
• • the USSR would gain income from China based on the value of Chinese territories which contain Soviet units, at the end of each Soviet turn
• • the influence scale would only serve to determine whether Chinese troops will defend North Korea
• • If contributing 12 or more IPCs to the USSR or giving full support to the USSR on the influence scale, NATO can declare war on China, and attack Chinese territories

@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:

• No paratroopers – neither side can use paratroopers
• Bombers can only transport infantry on non-combat movement
• Paratroopers can only be used in combat as an addition to other land units attacking the territory – the attack cannot consist only of aircraft, but it can be an amphibious assault

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.

1. Diplomacy: The USSR can move China up one space on the influence chart, or they can move the other two neutral alliances a total of two spaces on the influence chart.

This allows for some interesting options:

• The Soviets can move China to +8, giving them some more income and making Chinese support in North Korea a little bit more secure against NATO spies.
• The Soviets could move the Arab League to +0, meaning that the Suez Canal would be closed to NATO at the start of the game – potentially providing for some alternate strategies using the Soviet fleet in the Black Sea, but also preventing NATO from combining their ships from the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean.
• The Soviets could move the Arab league to +3, giving them almost the same amount of income as if they had increased Chinese support instead, but also allowing Soviet troops to move into Arab territories, providing a gateway to attack Africa.
• Moving the OAS would mean that an errant complication roll for a Soviet nuclear attack won’t immediately lead to more income for the USA.

The 2nd part of these added breakthroughs would be granting additional tech to the USSR:

2. Technology: The USSR gains two full-steps at submarine technology, or two half-steps towards any other tech trees.

What this does, in practical terms:

• The USSR can move their subs through hostile sea zones, bypassing enemy ships and potentially setting up offensive moves deeper into NATO supply lines.
• With the “straits rule” in place, the USSR can use the Black Sea or the Baltic Sea almost like sub pens, to protect these units from NATO naval units.
• Soviet subs can potentially link up, by crossing underneath the ice sheet at the top of the board – to project greater force into one theatre.
• This gives the USSR the option to develop Fission Weapons, as a counter to NATO naval power, or to progress further along the armor tech tree with the goal of eventually gaining total superiority on land.

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.

@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.

@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…?

@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.

@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.)