Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals

Expand Messages
  • M MISKOW
    People, these changes were designed as a group for balance purposes.How can you now cherry pick the ones you like and discard the others?THis is unrealistic.If
    Message 1 of 25 , Apr 29 11:06 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      People, these changes were designed as a group for balance purposes.How can you now cherry pick the ones you like and discard the others?THis is unrealistic.If you don't like something, you have to still propose some other change to at least try and keep this balance.No wonder Bruce complains about herding us cats.Here we have someone saying overruns in summer 41 are nothing, but didn't Bruce the designer just say these should not readily occur?Think I will go play tennis too!__________________
      To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
      From: dchanson45@...
      Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:56:48 -0700
      Subject: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals


























      I agree with 1, 5 and 6.



      2 is too much change with too much unintended effect around the map outside Russia. I understand Bruce's desire to 'speed up' the Russian setup for Barbarossa. But playing Russia I tend to not worry about overuns. I just accept that they will happen, and that all of the Russian at-start Army will die in either Summer or Fall. Instead I try to set up Russia so as to cause maximum risk and pain to the attacking Germans, not so much to prevent overruns. Russian doom is a design feature, and we should just publicize that as given, to reassure players that they needn't obsess about defending the indefensible.



      Could go with 3 if Bruce thinks necessary. But I recommend against it. Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach Osten; seems unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.

      Also, if such a change is made then it just cut the ground from under an Axis strategy in one of my current games. Axis aimed for and got a CTL increase in 1941. They want to use the newly capable Italian armor and infantry in Russia. (Barbarossa attack just kicked off, with significant Italian aid: 2o5 and five AAF.) Depriving the Axis of Italian services on one of the war's most important fronts seems to reduce the attraction to the Axis of the CTL research project.



      As for 4, we already gravely weakened, and created disincentive for, airdrops onto defended hexes without a ground attack. The +1 DM effectively reduces most of such attacks to 1:1s anyway. No need to further legislate such high-risk options out of existence.



      Dave Hanson



      From: Eric Thobaben <ethobaben@...>

      To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com

      Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:54 AM

      Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals





      My current thoughts in response to Bruce's proposal:



      1. Restrict production increments by year (agree).



      2. Overruns only by armor (agree).



      3. Prohibit Italian units on the eastern front (greater simplification).



      4. Airborne may only airdrop on vacant hexes or defended hexes in

      conjunction with a ground attack (agree).



      5. Russia must mobilize 1 AAF per mobilization (agree).



      6. Heavy armor research is abolished (agree). Russia and Germany may

      generate 5o6s at any time (agree).



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Bruce Harper
      We just need two more for doubles... Many players tend to be too narrow in their thinking - of course the proposal is intended to be a unified whole. Overruns
      Message 2 of 25 , Apr 29 1:42 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        We just need two more for doubles...

        Many players tend to be too narrow in their thinking - of course the
        proposal is intended to be a unified whole.

        Overruns are an example. Yes, the Russian army will be largely destroyed in
        Summer 1941 - the surprise and garrison rules inevitably lead to this. The
        difference between a normal attack and a good attack might be eliminating an
        extra 10 or 20 BRPs of units, or gaining an extra few hexes or a key city
        for use as an airbase.

        But an overun in the wrong place can lead to a complete Russian collapse (I
        know of inexperienced Russian players who have lost Moscow in Summer 1941)
        and (more importantly) preventing them or allowing them when they aren't
        fatal consumes an extra hour or two of playing time (I am not exaggerating).

        Is that hour or two well spent when: a) it is possible to set up Russia so
        that no effective overruns occur; and b) the game is just fine without them?

        I say "no", but people gripe at the thought of saving those two hours. That
        is NOT what the game is supposed to be all about.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "M MISKOW" <miskow@...>
        To: <aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 11:06 AM
        Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals


        >
        > People, these changes were designed as a group for balance purposes.How
        > can you now cherry pick the ones you like and discard the others?THis is
        > unrealistic.If you don't like something, you have to still propose some
        > other change to at least try and keep this balance.No wonder Bruce
        > complains about herding us cats.Here we have someone saying overruns in
        > summer 41 are nothing, but didn't Bruce the designer just say these should
        > not readily occur?Think I will go play tennis too!__________________
        > To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
        > From: dchanson45@...
        > Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:56:48 -0700
        > Subject: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > I agree with 1, 5 and 6.
        >
        >
        >
        > 2 is too much change with too much unintended effect around the map
        > outside Russia. I understand Bruce's desire to 'speed up' the Russian
        > setup for Barbarossa. But playing Russia I tend to not worry about
        > overuns. I just accept that they will happen, and that all of the Russian
        > at-start Army will die in either Summer or Fall. Instead I try to set up
        > Russia so as to cause maximum risk and pain to the attacking Germans, not
        > so much to prevent overruns. Russian doom is a design feature, and we
        > should just publicize that as given, to reassure players that they needn't
        > obsess about defending the indefensible.
        >
        >
        >
        > Could go with 3 if Bruce thinks necessary. But I recommend against it.
        > Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach Osten; seems
        > unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.
        >
        > Also, if such a change is made then it just cut the ground from under an
        > Axis strategy in one of my current games. Axis aimed for and got a CTL
        > increase in 1941. They want to use the newly capable Italian armor and
        > infantry in Russia. (Barbarossa attack just kicked off, with significant
        > Italian aid: 2o5 and five AAF.) Depriving the Axis of Italian services on
        > one of the war's most important fronts seems to reduce the attraction to
        > the Axis of the CTL research project.
        >
        >
        >
        > As for 4, we already gravely weakened, and created disincentive for,
        > airdrops onto defended hexes without a ground attack. The +1 DM
        > effectively reduces most of such attacks to 1:1s anyway. No need to
        > further legislate such high-risk options out of existence.
        >
        >
        >
        > Dave Hanson
        >
        >
        >
        > From: Eric Thobaben <ethobaben@...>
        >
        > To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:54 AM
        >
        > Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > My current thoughts in response to Bruce's proposal:
        >
        >
        >
        > 1. Restrict production increments by year (agree).
        >
        >
        >
        > 2. Overruns only by armor (agree).
        >
        >
        >
        > 3. Prohibit Italian units on the eastern front (greater simplification).
        >
        >
        >
        > 4. Airborne may only airdrop on vacant hexes or defended hexes in
        >
        > conjunction with a ground attack (agree).
        >
        >
        >
        > 5. Russia must mobilize 1 AAF per mobilization (agree).
        >
        >
        >
        > 6. Heavy armor research is abolished (agree). Russia and Germany may
        >
        > generate 5o6s at any time (agree).
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • M MISKOW
        100% agree. Tired of taking hours to setup best russian defence (PBEM). BTW, making the DM +2 for armour vs airdrops was an idea I was going to send you
        Message 3 of 25 , Apr 29 1:58 PM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          100% agree. Tired of taking hours to setup best russian defence (PBEM). BTW, making the DM +2 for armour vs airdrops was an idea I was going to send you yesterday just before you proposed it, so obviously I like it.Simple and makes sense. When would anyone be crazy enough to land on a fully functional armour unit> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
          From: bruce54321@...
          Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:42:40 -0700
          Subject: Re: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals


























          We just need two more for doubles...



          Many players tend to be too narrow in their thinking - of course the

          proposal is intended to be a unified whole.



          Overruns are an example. Yes, the Russian army will be largely destroyed in

          Summer 1941 - the surprise and garrison rules inevitably lead to this. The

          difference between a normal attack and a good attack might be eliminating an

          extra 10 or 20 BRPs of units, or gaining an extra few hexes or a key city

          for use as an airbase.



          But an overun in the wrong place can lead to a complete Russian collapse (I

          know of inexperienced Russian players who have lost Moscow in Summer 1941)

          and (more importantly) preventing them or allowing them when they aren't

          fatal consumes an extra hour or two of playing time (I am not exaggerating).



          Is that hour or two well spent when: a) it is possible to set up Russia so

          that no effective overruns occur; and b) the game is just fine without them?



          I say "no", but people gripe at the thought of saving those two hours. That

          is NOT what the game is supposed to be all about.



          ----- Original Message -----

          From: "M MISKOW" <miskow@...>

          To: <aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com>

          Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 11:06 AM

          Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals



          >

          > People, these changes were designed as a group for balance purposes.How

          > can you now cherry pick the ones you like and discard the others?THis is

          > unrealistic.If you don't like something, you have to still propose some

          > other change to at least try and keep this balance.No wonder Bruce

          > complains about herding us cats.Here we have someone saying overruns in

          > summer 41 are nothing, but didn't Bruce the designer just say these should

          > not readily occur?Think I will go play tennis too!__________________

          > To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com

          > From: dchanson45@...

          > Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:56:48 -0700

          > Subject: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          > I agree with 1, 5 and 6.

          >

          >

          >

          > 2 is too much change with too much unintended effect around the map

          > outside Russia. I understand Bruce's desire to 'speed up' the Russian

          > setup for Barbarossa. But playing Russia I tend to not worry about

          > overuns. I just accept that they will happen, and that all of the Russian

          > at-start Army will die in either Summer or Fall. Instead I try to set up

          > Russia so as to cause maximum risk and pain to the attacking Germans, not

          > so much to prevent overruns. Russian doom is a design feature, and we

          > should just publicize that as given, to reassure players that they needn't

          > obsess about defending the indefensible.

          >

          >

          >

          > Could go with 3 if Bruce thinks necessary. But I recommend against it.

          > Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach Osten; seems

          > unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.

          >

          > Also, if such a change is made then it just cut the ground from under an

          > Axis strategy in one of my current games. Axis aimed for and got a CTL

          > increase in 1941. They want to use the newly capable Italian armor and

          > infantry in Russia. (Barbarossa attack just kicked off, with significant

          > Italian aid: 2o5 and five AAF.) Depriving the Axis of Italian services on

          > one of the war's most important fronts seems to reduce the attraction to

          > the Axis of the CTL research project.

          >

          >

          >

          > As for 4, we already gravely weakened, and created disincentive for,

          > airdrops onto defended hexes without a ground attack. The +1 DM

          > effectively reduces most of such attacks to 1:1s anyway. No need to

          > further legislate such high-risk options out of existence.

          >

          >

          >

          > Dave Hanson

          >

          >

          >

          > From: Eric Thobaben <ethobaben@...>

          >

          > To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com

          >

          > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:54 AM

          >

          > Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          > My current thoughts in response to Bruce's proposal:

          >

          >

          >

          > 1. Restrict production increments by year (agree).

          >

          >

          >

          > 2. Overruns only by armor (agree).

          >

          >

          >

          > 3. Prohibit Italian units on the eastern front (greater simplification).

          >

          >

          >

          > 4. Airborne may only airdrop on vacant hexes or defended hexes in

          >

          > conjunction with a ground attack (agree).

          >

          >

          >

          > 5. Russia must mobilize 1 AAF per mobilization (agree).

          >

          >

          >

          > 6. Heavy armor research is abolished (agree). Russia and Germany may

          >

          > generate 5o6s at any time (agree).

          >

          >

          >

          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

          >

          >

          >

          > ------------------------------------

          >

          > Yahoo! Groups Links

          >

          >

          >


















          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • StevenR
          Thank you. The bigotry against Italy as a component in AWAW is not likely intentional. Rather it is a biproduct of OKW-fans and the need for a balanced game.
          Message 4 of 25 , Apr 29 2:03 PM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Thank you. The bigotry against Italy as a component in AWAW is not likely intentional. Rather it is a biproduct of OKW-fans and the need for a balanced game. Whenever it has come time to make a change in balance, it has been Italy that has sufferred. Now, here we go again.

            The Tiger tanks can roll in 1941, but half a million Italians are just a pack of dumbfounded dipshits... and there is no way to alter that; nothing to research to make Italy better; nothing that Italy can do (as Japan can) to keep itself from locking up like a deer in the headlights.

            IMHO, we have gone far enough in that direction. ...and just out of curiosity: How many Italian-Americans, or Italians other Italian extra-nationals are within the sound of my voice?


            --- In aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com, "urukhai333" <urukhai333@...> wrote:
            >
            > In July 1941, some 62,000 Italian troops of the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia (Corpo di Spedizione Italiano in Russia, or CSIR) left for the Eastern Front to aid in the German invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa).
            >
            > In July 1942, the Italian Royal Army (Regio Esercito) expanded the CSIR to a full army of about 200,000 men known as the Italian Army in Russia (Armata Italiana in Russia, or ARMIR). The ARMIR was also known as the "Italian 8th Army."
            >
            > In July 1942, Mussolini scaled up the Italian effort on the Eastern Front and the CSIR became the 8th Italian Army. The 8th Italian Army was also known as the Italian Army in Russia (Armata Italiana in Russia, or ARMIR). The ARMIR was subordinated to German General Maximilian von Weichs' Army Group B.
            > Italian General Italo Gariboldi took command of the newly formed ARMIR from General Messe. As commander of the CSIR, Messe had opposed an enlargement of the Italian contingent in Russia until it could be properly equipped. As a result, he was dismissed.
            >
            > Just prior to commanding the ARMIR, Gariboldi was the Governor-General of Libya. He was criticized after the war for being too submissive to the Germans.
            >
            > Mussolini sent seven new divisions to Russia for a total of ten divisions. Four new infantry divisions were sent and included: The 2 Infantry Division Sforzesca, the 3 Infantry Division Ravenna, the 5 Infantry Division Cosseria, and the 156 Infantry Division Vicenza. In addition to the infantry divisions, three new Alpini divisions were sent; The 2 Alpini Division Tridentina, the 3 Alpini Division Julia, and the 4 Alpini Division Cuneense. These new divisions were added to the Torino, Pasubio, and Prince Amedeo Duke of Aosta divisions already in Russia.
            >
            > No Italian Army on the Eastern Front?? Doesn't seem supported in fact.
            > - By any reasonable approximation, that is at least 3-5 full divisions or 2 Army Corps at Barbarossa start and by '42 close to 200,000 Italians (in 10 divisions) were in the fight.
          • Bruce Harper
            September 1944, I believe... ... From: M MISKOW To: Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 1:58 PM Subject: RE:
            Message 5 of 25 , Apr 29 2:17 PM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              September 1944, I believe...

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "M MISKOW" <miskow@...>
              To: <aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 1:58 PM
              Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals


              >
              > 100% agree. Tired of taking hours to setup best russian defence (PBEM).
              > BTW, making the DM +2 for armour vs airdrops was an idea I was going to
              > send you yesterday just before you proposed it, so obviously I like
              > it.Simple and makes sense. When would anyone be crazy enough to land on a
              > fully functional armour unit> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
              > From: bruce54321@...
              > Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:42:40 -0700
              > Subject: Re: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > We just need two more for doubles...
              >
              >
              >
              > Many players tend to be too narrow in their thinking - of course the
              >
              > proposal is intended to be a unified whole.
              >
              >
              >
              > Overruns are an example. Yes, the Russian army will be largely destroyed
              > in
              >
              > Summer 1941 - the surprise and garrison rules inevitably lead to this.
              > The
              >
              > difference between a normal attack and a good attack might be eliminating
              > an
              >
              > extra 10 or 20 BRPs of units, or gaining an extra few hexes or a key city
              >
              > for use as an airbase.
              >
              >
              >
              > But an overun in the wrong place can lead to a complete Russian collapse
              > (I
              >
              > know of inexperienced Russian players who have lost Moscow in Summer 1941)
              >
              > and (more importantly) preventing them or allowing them when they aren't
              >
              > fatal consumes an extra hour or two of playing time (I am not
              > exaggerating).
              >
              >
              >
              > Is that hour or two well spent when: a) it is possible to set up Russia so
              >
              > that no effective overruns occur; and b) the game is just fine without
              > them?
              >
              >
              >
              > I say "no", but people gripe at the thought of saving those two hours.
              > That
              >
              > is NOT what the game is supposed to be all about.
              >
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              >
              > From: "M MISKOW" <miskow@...>
              >
              > To: <aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com>
              >
              > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 11:06 AM
              >
              > Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals
              >
              >
              >
              >>
              >
              >> People, these changes were designed as a group for balance purposes.How
              >
              >> can you now cherry pick the ones you like and discard the others?THis is
              >
              >> unrealistic.If you don't like something, you have to still propose some
              >
              >> other change to at least try and keep this balance.No wonder Bruce
              >
              >> complains about herding us cats.Here we have someone saying overruns in
              >
              >> summer 41 are nothing, but didn't Bruce the designer just say these
              >> should
              >
              >> not readily occur?Think I will go play tennis too!__________________
              >
              >> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >> From: dchanson45@...
              >
              >> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:56:48 -0700
              >
              >> Subject: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> I agree with 1, 5 and 6.
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> 2 is too much change with too much unintended effect around the map
              >
              >> outside Russia. I understand Bruce's desire to 'speed up' the Russian
              >
              >> setup for Barbarossa. But playing Russia I tend to not worry about
              >
              >> overuns. I just accept that they will happen, and that all of the Russian
              >
              >> at-start Army will die in either Summer or Fall. Instead I try to set up
              >
              >> Russia so as to cause maximum risk and pain to the attacking Germans, not
              >
              >> so much to prevent overruns. Russian doom is a design feature, and we
              >
              >> should just publicize that as given, to reassure players that they
              >> needn't
              >
              >> obsess about defending the indefensible.
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> Could go with 3 if Bruce thinks necessary. But I recommend against it.
              >
              >> Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach Osten; seems
              >
              >> unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.
              >
              >>
              >
              >> Also, if such a change is made then it just cut the ground from under an
              >
              >> Axis strategy in one of my current games. Axis aimed for and got a CTL
              >
              >> increase in 1941. They want to use the newly capable Italian armor and
              >
              >> infantry in Russia. (Barbarossa attack just kicked off, with significant
              >
              >> Italian aid: 2o5 and five AAF.) Depriving the Axis of Italian services on
              >
              >> one of the war's most important fronts seems to reduce the attraction to
              >
              >> the Axis of the CTL research project.
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> As for 4, we already gravely weakened, and created disincentive for,
              >
              >> airdrops onto defended hexes without a ground attack. The +1 DM
              >
              >> effectively reduces most of such attacks to 1:1s anyway. No need to
              >
              >> further legislate such high-risk options out of existence.
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> Dave Hanson
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> From: Eric Thobaben <ethobaben@...>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >>
              >
              >> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:54 AM
              >
              >>
              >
              >> Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> My current thoughts in response to Bruce's proposal:
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> 1. Restrict production increments by year (agree).
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> 2. Overruns only by armor (agree).
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> 3. Prohibit Italian units on the eastern front (greater simplification).
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> 4. Airborne may only airdrop on vacant hexes or defended hexes in
              >
              >>
              >
              >> conjunction with a ground attack (agree).
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> 5. Russia must mobilize 1 AAF per mobilization (agree).
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> 6. Heavy armor research is abolished (agree). Russia and Germany may
              >
              >>
              >
              >> generate 5o6s at any time (agree).
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >> ------------------------------------
              >
              >>
              >
              >> Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
            • M MISKOW
              Not on purpose I understand, but it sure showed the folly of it. And it would have ended faster if they had not been defending mostly in a city, the bain of
              Message 6 of 25 , Apr 29 2:18 PM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Not on purpose I understand, but it sure showed the folly of it. And it would have ended faster if they had not been defending mostly in a city, the bain of armour.
                To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
                From: bruce54321@...
                Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:17:03 -0700
                Subject: Re: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals


























                September 1944, I believe...



                ----- Original Message -----

                From: "M MISKOW" <miskow@...>

                To: <aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com>

                Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 1:58 PM

                Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals



                >

                > 100% agree. Tired of taking hours to setup best russian defence (PBEM).

                > BTW, making the DM +2 for armour vs airdrops was an idea I was going to

                > send you yesterday just before you proposed it, so obviously I like

                > it.Simple and makes sense. When would anyone be crazy enough to land on a

                > fully functional armour unit> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com

                > From: bruce54321@...

                > Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:42:40 -0700

                > Subject: Re: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                > We just need two more for doubles...

                >

                >

                >

                > Many players tend to be too narrow in their thinking - of course the

                >

                > proposal is intended to be a unified whole.

                >

                >

                >

                > Overruns are an example. Yes, the Russian army will be largely destroyed

                > in

                >

                > Summer 1941 - the surprise and garrison rules inevitably lead to this.

                > The

                >

                > difference between a normal attack and a good attack might be eliminating

                > an

                >

                > extra 10 or 20 BRPs of units, or gaining an extra few hexes or a key city

                >

                > for use as an airbase.

                >

                >

                >

                > But an overun in the wrong place can lead to a complete Russian collapse

                > (I

                >

                > know of inexperienced Russian players who have lost Moscow in Summer 1941)

                >

                > and (more importantly) preventing them or allowing them when they aren't

                >

                > fatal consumes an extra hour or two of playing time (I am not

                > exaggerating).

                >

                >

                >

                > Is that hour or two well spent when: a) it is possible to set up Russia so

                >

                > that no effective overruns occur; and b) the game is just fine without

                > them?

                >

                >

                >

                > I say "no", but people gripe at the thought of saving those two hours.

                > That

                >

                > is NOT what the game is supposed to be all about.

                >

                >

                >

                > ----- Original Message -----

                >

                > From: "M MISKOW" <miskow@...>

                >

                > To: <aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com>

                >

                > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 11:06 AM

                >

                > Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals

                >

                >

                >

                >>

                >

                >> People, these changes were designed as a group for balance purposes.How

                >

                >> can you now cherry pick the ones you like and discard the others?THis is

                >

                >> unrealistic.If you don't like something, you have to still propose some

                >

                >> other change to at least try and keep this balance.No wonder Bruce

                >

                >> complains about herding us cats.Here we have someone saying overruns in

                >

                >> summer 41 are nothing, but didn't Bruce the designer just say these

                >> should

                >

                >> not readily occur?Think I will go play tennis too!__________________

                >

                >> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com

                >

                >> From: dchanson45@...

                >

                >> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:56:48 -0700

                >

                >> Subject: [aworldatwar] Bruce's current proposals

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> I agree with 1, 5 and 6.

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> 2 is too much change with too much unintended effect around the map

                >

                >> outside Russia. I understand Bruce's desire to 'speed up' the Russian

                >

                >> setup for Barbarossa. But playing Russia I tend to not worry about

                >

                >> overuns. I just accept that they will happen, and that all of the Russian

                >

                >> at-start Army will die in either Summer or Fall. Instead I try to set up

                >

                >> Russia so as to cause maximum risk and pain to the attacking Germans, not

                >

                >> so much to prevent overruns. Russian doom is a design feature, and we

                >

                >> should just publicize that as given, to reassure players that they

                >> needn't

                >

                >> obsess about defending the indefensible.

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> Could go with 3 if Bruce thinks necessary. But I recommend against it.

                >

                >> Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach Osten; seems

                >

                >> unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.

                >

                >>

                >

                >> Also, if such a change is made then it just cut the ground from under an

                >

                >> Axis strategy in one of my current games. Axis aimed for and got a CTL

                >

                >> increase in 1941. They want to use the newly capable Italian armor and

                >

                >> infantry in Russia. (Barbarossa attack just kicked off, with significant

                >

                >> Italian aid: 2o5 and five AAF.) Depriving the Axis of Italian services on

                >

                >> one of the war's most important fronts seems to reduce the attraction to

                >

                >> the Axis of the CTL research project.

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> As for 4, we already gravely weakened, and created disincentive for,

                >

                >> airdrops onto defended hexes without a ground attack. The +1 DM

                >

                >> effectively reduces most of such attacks to 1:1s anyway. No need to

                >

                >> further legislate such high-risk options out of existence.

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> Dave Hanson

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> From: Eric Thobaben <ethobaben@...>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com

                >

                >>

                >

                >> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:54 AM

                >

                >>

                >

                >> Subject: RE: [aworldatwar] Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> My current thoughts in response to Bruce's proposal:

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> 1. Restrict production increments by year (agree).

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> 2. Overruns only by armor (agree).

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> 3. Prohibit Italian units on the eastern front (greater simplification).

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> 4. Airborne may only airdrop on vacant hexes or defended hexes in

                >

                >>

                >

                >> conjunction with a ground attack (agree).

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> 5. Russia must mobilize 1 AAF per mobilization (agree).

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> 6. Heavy armor research is abolished (agree). Russia and Germany may

                >

                >>

                >

                >> generate 5o6s at any time (agree).

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >> ------------------------------------

                >

                >>

                >

                >> Yahoo! Groups Links

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >>

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                >

                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                >

                >

                >

                > ------------------------------------

                >

                > Yahoo! Groups Links

                >

                >

                >


















                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Darrel Christianson
                Although I have not played with many of the recent changes, I have noticed the same thing. Once upon a time when we played a large player game, I really
                Message 7 of 25 , Apr 29 3:39 PM
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Although I have not played with many of the recent changes, I have noticed
                  the same thing. Once upon a time when we played a large player game, I
                  really enjoyed playing Italy. There seemed to be options and enough
                  challenge to play as a single player... but they have certainly changed
                  enough as a year ago to make them no very fun (IMO).



                  I would imagine Steven's comment on making them a minor power was probably
                  containing a hint of sarcasm, but this isn't far from the truth.... might be
                  a good idea to make them a minor power. (As much as such a dynamic change
                  would prolly not be supported by Bruce, too many rule corrections?)



                  Italy is kinda like China in this regards.... not much use other than to
                  hold a line while the other major power(s) make their move ;)



                  Darrel Christianson



                  E | <mailto:darrel.awaw@...>
                  darrel.awaw@...



                  From: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com [mailto:aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com] On
                  Behalf Of StevenR
                  Sent: April-29-12 3:04 PM
                  To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [aworldatwar] Re: Russia and Mark's feedback - proposals





                  Thank you. The bigotry against Italy as a component in AWAW is not likely
                  intentional. Rather it is a biproduct of OKW-fans and the need for a
                  balanced game. Whenever it has come time to make a change in balance, it has
                  been Italy that has sufferred. Now, here we go again.

                  The Tiger tanks can roll in 1941, but half a million Italians are just a
                  pack of dumbfounded dipshits... and there is no way to alter that; nothing
                  to research to make Italy better; nothing that Italy can do (as Japan can)
                  to keep itself from locking up like a deer in the headlights.

                  IMHO, we have gone far enough in that direction. ...and just out of
                  curiosity: How many Italian-Americans, or Italians other Italian
                  extra-nationals are within the sound of my voice?

                  --- In aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:aworldatwar%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                  "urukhai333" <urukhai333@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > In July 1941, some 62,000 Italian troops of the Italian Expeditionary
                  Corps in Russia (Corpo di Spedizione Italiano in Russia, or CSIR) left for
                  the Eastern Front to aid in the German invasion of the Soviet Union
                  (Operation Barbarossa).
                  >
                  > In July 1942, the Italian Royal Army (Regio Esercito) expanded the CSIR to
                  a full army of about 200,000 men known as the Italian Army in Russia (Armata
                  Italiana in Russia, or ARMIR). The ARMIR was also known as the "Italian 8th
                  Army."
                  >
                  > In July 1942, Mussolini scaled up the Italian effort on the Eastern Front
                  and the CSIR became the 8th Italian Army. The 8th Italian Army was also
                  known as the Italian Army in Russia (Armata Italiana in Russia, or ARMIR).
                  The ARMIR was subordinated to German General Maximilian von Weichs' Army
                  Group B.
                  > Italian General Italo Gariboldi took command of the newly formed ARMIR
                  from General Messe. As commander of the CSIR, Messe had opposed an
                  enlargement of the Italian contingent in Russia until it could be properly
                  equipped. As a result, he was dismissed.
                  >
                  > Just prior to commanding the ARMIR, Gariboldi was the Governor-General of
                  Libya. He was criticized after the war for being too submissive to the
                  Germans.
                  >
                  > Mussolini sent seven new divisions to Russia for a total of ten divisions.
                  Four new infantry divisions were sent and included: The 2 Infantry Division
                  Sforzesca, the 3 Infantry Division Ravenna, the 5 Infantry Division
                  Cosseria, and the 156 Infantry Division Vicenza. In addition to the infantry
                  divisions, three new Alpini divisions were sent; The 2 Alpini Division
                  Tridentina, the 3 Alpini Division Julia, and the 4 Alpini Division Cuneense.
                  These new divisions were added to the Torino, Pasubio, and Prince Amedeo
                  Duke of Aosta divisions already in Russia.
                  >
                  > No Italian Army on the Eastern Front?? Doesn't seem supported in fact.
                  > - By any reasonable approximation, that is at least 3-5 full divisions or
                  2 Army Corps at Barbarossa start and by '42 close to 200,000 Italians (in 10
                  divisions) were in the fight.





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • donmoody@pro-ns.net
                  ... If major is the word you use to describe the historical commitment , what word would you use to describe what we commonly see occurring in the game
                  Message 8 of 25 , Apr 29 4:34 PM
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dave Hanson wrote:

                    > Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach Osten;
                    > seems unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.

                    If 'major' is the word you use to describe the 'historical commitment',
                    what word would you use to describe what we commonly see occurring in the
                    game (i.e. all or all but one of the Italian armour units, all or all but
                    all os the Italian air, some infantry)?

                    DonMoody
                  • Dave Hanson
                    The word?             Let s try     *Enhanced*   As in Get *enhanced* energy, pep and male potency from using this gee-whiz super-grade
                    Message 9 of 25 , Apr 29 4:43 PM
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The word?             Let's try     *Enhanced*
                       
                      As in "Get *enhanced* energy, pep and male potency from using this gee-whiz super-grade aphrodisiac we will sell you on line from our Canadian Pharmacy."
                       
                      [Thanks, but no thanks.]
                      I'll stick with the 'major' capabilities allowed by nature and history.
                       
                      I will agree to limit Italians in the East to infantry only.  So they can provide attrition losses, among other useful services.
                       
                      Dave Hanson

                      From: "donmoody@..." <donmoody@...>
                      To: aworldatwar@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 7:34 PM
                      Subject: [aworldatwar] Re: Descriptor


                       
                      Dave Hanson wrote:

                      > Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach Osten;
                      > seems unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.

                      If 'major' is the word you use to describe the 'historical commitment',
                      what word would you use to describe what we commonly see occurring in the
                      game (i.e. all or all but one of the Italian armour units, all or all but
                      all os the Italian air, some infantry)?

                      DonMoody


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • donmoody@pro-ns.net
                      ... Never (not intentionally anyway ...). DonMoody
                      Message 10 of 25 , Apr 29 4:54 PM
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Maurice Miskow wrote:

                        > When would anyone be crazy enough to land on a fully functional
                        > armour unit

                        Never (not intentionally anyway ...).

                        DonMoody
                      • donmoody@pro-ns.net
                        ... It looks to me like you are [mis]using enhanced as a synonym for bogus ... DonMoody
                        Message 11 of 25 , Apr 29 4:57 PM
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I [DonMoody] wrote:

                          > Dave Hanson wrote:
                          >
                          >> Historically Italy made a major commitment to Drang Nach
                          >> Osten; seems unreasonable to deny that prospect in the game.
                          >
                          > If 'major' is the word you use to describe the 'historical
                          > commitment', what word would you use to describe what we
                          > commonly see occurring in the game (i.e. all or all but one
                          > of the Italian armour units, all or all but all of the Italian
                          > air, some infantry)?


                          Dave Hanson wrote:

                          > The word?             Let's try     *Enhanced*
                          >  
                          > As in "Get *enhanced* energy, pep and male potency from using
                          > this gee-whiz super-grade aphrodisiac we will sell you on line
                          > from our Canadian Pharmacy."

                          It looks to me like you are [mis]using 'enhanced' as a synonym for 'bogus'
                          ...

                          DonMoody
                        • donmoody@pro-ns.net
                          ... I wish there were more with that view. DonMoody
                          Message 12 of 25 , Apr 29 5:01 PM
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Bruce Harper wrote:

                            > I say "no", but people gripe at the thought of saving those
                            > two hours.

                            Maurice Miskow wrote:

                            > 100% agree.
                            > Tired of taking hours to setup best russian defence (PBEM).

                            I wish there were more with that view.

                            DonMoody
                          • Mike Crowe
                            I am taking a chance by responding before reading the rest of today s posts, but will. I very much like all of these suggestions, and believe that they address
                            Message 13 of 25 , Apr 29 5:32 PM
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I am taking a chance by responding before reading the rest of today's
                              posts, but will.

                              I very much like all of these suggestions, and believe that they address
                              important areas of the game in satisfactory ways. Getting rid
                              completely of the unaided, clearing paradrop is excellent. So is
                              dispensing with heavy armor research. And I have, for a very long time,
                              wanted the ability for Russia to place two airbases in a phase.
                              Eliminating the ability of paratroops to overrun is also good, and saves
                              the defender of a lot of thought. It was already too hard to defend, and
                              we have just about made it possible to do now. Preventing infantry from
                              participating will hurt everyone (one less armored unit available), but
                              it's ok by me. Using the Italians only for defense in Russia is amusing
                              and will encourage them to sticking to their true areas of interest.

                              The ability for Germany to bring in one 5o6 for use in Fall 41, and a
                              second for use in Summer 42, helps to balance the loss of the Italian
                              2o5's. The overrun threat of these units, while a potential headache,
                              hurts quite a bit less than the overrun potential of 5o6's PLUS three
                              airborne.

                              Someone else may raise this, but the ability to place two US and two
                              British airbases in Europe (or the Pacific) might be a bit much. It
                              could possibly be justified historically, but I am afraid it might upset
                              play balance. Prohibiting adding British, French or Italian airbases
                              might be in order.

                              This should motivate some interesting new plans as well, though I can't
                              predict what they might be! I just have faith in our collective creativity!


                              I like the production restrictions as well, and restricting the
                              increments allowed by year.
                              On 4/29/2012 12:54 AM, Bruce Harper wrote:
                              >
                              > It's not my fault you live on the wrong side of the world...
                              >
                              > I wonder if you have had a chance to go through all the posts. Here is
                              > the latest (final) version of the change:
                              >
                              > 42.16 PRODUCTION RESTRICTIONS:
                              >
                              > A. 1939 PRODUCTION PROHIBITED: Production in 1939 is prohibited (RPs
                              > may not be allocated to production in 1939 - 41.31D).
                              >
                              > B. LIMITS ON PRODUCTION RESULTS LIMITED BY YEAR: The number of
                              > increments of production that may be triggered in production projects
                              > that create air and military units is limited according to the year:
                              > 1940-41: one increment; 1942: two increments; 1943: three increments;
                              > and so on. This restriction applies to the following production projects:
                              >
                              > · Air:
                              >
                              > o Air production (army air factors, interceptors).
                              >
                              > o Strategic bomber production.
                              >
                              > o Air transport production.
                              >
                              > · Military:
                              >
                              > o Military production (infantry, armor, flak).
                              >
                              > o Specialized unit production.
                              >
                              > So it is not that these production projects are high tech - unit
                              > production projects are limited in the number of increments of units
                              > they can produce.
                              >
                              > You raise several topics:
                              >
                              > GERMAN BOMBERS:
                              >
                              > This makes the German bomber build up:
                              >
                              > 1940: 1 SB, +2 BRPs. (1 RP)
                              > 1941: 2 SBs, +1 BRP. (2 RPs)
                              > 1942: 3 SBs, +2 BRPs. (3 RPs)
                              > 1943: 5 SBs, +2 BRPs.
                              >
                              > So I make it 6 German strategic bombers in 1942.
                              >
                              > As always, your analysis is good. I don't agree with every conclusion,
                              > though (if only because we can't change everything at once!)
                              >
                              > We know Russia will be able to produce only 3 3x3s in 1940-1941,
                              > although all three will be on the frontier (if desired). So Russia
                              > won't be that much different on the first turn.
                              >
                              > OVERRUNS AND GERMAN HEAVY ARMOR:
                              >
                              > There is discussion of relaxing the restriction on German heavy armor,
                              > but I think this is probably a mistake. The Summer 1941 are a real
                              > pain, not because Russia can't defend against them, but because it
                              > takes an extra hour or two to do so, and possibly a retraction as
                              > well. The game would be much simpler at that point if no overruns were
                              > possible against a hex defending at a strength of 6 (yes, simplicity
                              > is good even in AWAW...)
                              >
                              > The solution is simple enough - say that overrunning is an ability
                              > unique to armor units: infantry and specialized units cannot overrun.
                              > Unless the target is weak (and probably defending at face value), this
                              > means that both overruning units must be armor:
                              >
                              > Substantive change (June 30, 2012)
                              >
                              > 13.51 RESTRICTIONS: Overruns are an offensive operation. Overruns may
                              > take place during the movement phase of both regular and exploitation
                              > movement. Units being overrun are subject to both positive and
                              > negative DMs in the same manner as units being attacked (15.3).
                              >
                              > 13.52 MECHANICS: Overruns are conducted by moving no more than two
                              > armor units through the same hexside into a hex containing enemy
                              > unit(s) at odds of 6:1 or greater. Both overrunning units must be an
                              > armor unit with a functional mechanized component. Each overrunning
                              > armor unit must expend one additional movement point to occupy the
                              > overrun hex. If the overrunning armor units do not have sufficient
                              > movement points, the overrun is prohibited.
                              >
                              > 13.521 Armor units performing overruns may arrive at the hex from
                              > which the overrun is made from different locations. A sea-transported
                              > armor unit may overrun in conjunction with an other armor unit; armor
                              > units exploiting from different breakthrough hexes may combine to
                              > overrun units.
                              >
                              > 13.522 No more than two armor units may move from a breakthrough hex
                              > into the same adjacent hex to conduct an overrun against enemy ground
                              > units in that hex.
                              >
                              > This means that with no 4o6 armor units, the maximum German overrun
                              > capability is 8 + 24 (air) = 32, so a 5 defense unit can be overrun
                              > and a 6 can't. Every year at the convention the game grinds to a halt
                              > as Russian players strive to defend against a 9 + 27 (air) = 36
                              > capability (36:6 = 6:1). Screw it. Prohibit the German heavy armor
                              > until 1942 and prohibit airborne units from participating in overruns.
                              >
                              > I don't think this will unduly weaken the German attack in Summer 1941.
                              >
                              > ITALIAN PARTICIPATION IN THE RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN:
                              >
                              > Italian units participated in the Russian campaign, but they were very
                              > weak and consisted mainly of infantry. The use of the Italian airbase
                              > in Russia (probably the biggest Italian contribution) requires the use
                              > of the Italian 5 AAF as well, for the reasons Mark explains (which
                              > every AWAW player knows).
                              >
                              > I don't know if play balance would be adversely affected if this
                              > capability were to be removed. But the employment of Italian armor and
                              > air in the east is both ahistorical and arguably impossible, so I
                              > would have no trouble banning it.
                              >
                              > We have to be a bit careful as to how we craft this, though. Mark has
                              > set out the use to which the Italian air is put. The Italian armor,
                              > while weak (two factors), slow (5 MPs) and with a lower
                              > CTL/exploitation ability (3 hexes), is still valuable because the
                              > Italian 2o5s can either create breakthroughs at high odds (they can
                              > only attack once, so they have to win in the first round) or form an
                              > early link in the chain (they still have ZoCs and by being in the
                              > chain they free up German armor units).
                              >
                              > I think the solution is not to prohibit Italian units from going to
                              > the eastern front (only minor country units have such prohibitions, as
                              > we are nice and treat Italy like as major power) or to limit how many
                              > Italian units can go to the eastern front (people will forget), but
                              > rather to simply prohibit Italian units from conducting offensive
                              > operations on the eastern front. The Italian airbase could still be
                              > used (Italian units providing support), but it couldn't be placed and
                              > used all at once (which is its current real strength).
                              >
                              > Italian units could therefore defend certain sectors of the front
                              > (ground and armor), take attrition losses (ground) and fly defensive
                              > air support (AAF), but probably it would be more efficient to put most
                              > of the Italian units where they should be - in the Mediterranean.
                              >
                              > AIRDROPS:
                              >
                              > I think airdrops may have a role to play in taking ports in Britain
                              > that are defended by a single ground factor, but I agree that 1:1
                              > "clearing" attacks are ahistorical and annoying, as well as being time
                              > consuming to defend against.
                              >
                              > So I support the suggestion that airborne units not be allowed to
                              > attack by air on their own. A slightly weaker version of this would be
                              > that lone airdrops against armor units are prohibited, or that armor
                              > defends with a +2 DM, rather than a +1 DM. But this would be the same
                              > as a prohibition.
                              >
                              > THE BALANCE IN RUSSIA:
                              >
                              > To recap, and save Mark from having to read another 70 (I think it was
                              > really 700) posts, here's where we would be (are)"
                              >
                              > 1. Production is limited by increments, for both the Axis and Russia
                              > (and the Western Allies too, which takes some pressure off the Axis).
                              >
                              > 2. Heavy armor cannot appear until the Summer 1941 construction phase
                              > and only armor units can overrun, so 6-factor Russian defenders are
                              > safe in Summer 1941.
                              >
                              > 3. Italian units may not conduct offensive operations on the eastern
                              > front.
                              >
                              > 4. Airdrops against hexes containing enemy units are prohibited,
                              > except in conjunction with a ground attack or seaborne invasion.
                              >
                              > All this is fine, but where does it leave the balance in Russia? 1 is
                              > a wash, and 2 is not that big a deal, while 4 has always been bogus.
                              > But 3 is significant, if we go that far. I don't know how many games
                              > see "all the Axis air" in Russia, but that wouldn't be useful, and the
                              > Germans would, in effect, lose the use of something like two armor
                              > units. So this is a big shift in favor of the Russians.
                              >
                              > I don't want to monkey with the mobilization timetable or the
                              > increases in the Russian BRP levels and BRP base, so we need another
                              > offset.
                              >
                              > One is to allow a major power with more than 3 airbases in a theater
                              > to place two airbases during a phase, rather than just one. For
                              > Germany, they would have this ability from the start. I have often
                              > thought of this while using the BS Italian airbase as a substitute. I
                              > don't think the game has been particularly imbalanced by this, and if
                              > Russia, Britain or the US (or Japan, for that matter) produced an
                              > airbase, they would also have this ability. So that would balance
                              > removing the Italian airbase ability in Russia.
                              >
                              > The second might be Eric's suggestion: that time Russia mobilizes, it
                              > must mobilize one armor unit and at least one AAF. Because Russia is
                              > under threat, it would restrict itself to one AAF (probably for every
                              > mobilization, unless Germany didn't attack at all), so Russia would
                              > have less infantry. In addition, Russian air takes four turns to arrive.
                              >
                              > So the 3x3 infantry count for Russia would be:
                              >
                              > At start: 4 3x3s
                              > Spring 1940 production: 1 3x3 (total: 5 3x3s)
                              > Fall 1940 mobilization (M1), topped up by Russian production remnants,
                              > arriving in Spring 1941: 3 3x3s (total 8 3x3s).
                              > Spring 1941 production: 1 3x3 (total 9 3x3s).
                              > Spring 1941 mobilization (M2), arriving in Fall 1941: 3 3x3s (total 11
                              > 3x3s)
                              > Siberian transfer: 2 3x3s (total 13 3x3s)
                              > Summer 1941 mobilization (M3), arriving in Winter 1941: 3 3x3s (total
                              > 16 3x3s)
                              > Fall 1941 mobilization (M4), arriving in Spring 1942: 3 3x3s (total 19
                              > 3x3s) + one AAF
                              > Spring 1942 production: 3 3x3s (maximum) (total 20-22 3x3s)
                              > Winter 1941 mobilization (M5), arriving in Summer 1942: 3 3x3s (total
                              > 23-25 3x3s) + two AAF
                              > Summer 1942: + 4o5
                              > Fall 1942: + one AAF
                              > Winter 1942: + one AAF + two 4o5s
                              > Spring 1943: + one 4o5
                              > Spring 1942: Military production (?)
                              > Summer 1943: + one 4o5
                              >
                              > This seems more balanced to me. Russia would be "short" five infantry,
                              > being replaced by AAF that arrives later (and might not get build for
                              > a while longer). In return, it doesn't have to fight the Italians.
                              >
                              > I like the scaling down of the eastern front in this manner.
                              >
                              > A final point: I have always thought that heavy armor research should
                              > be abolished: Russia should simply have the option of
                              > mobilizing/producing 5o6s (which would be at the expense of a 3x3) and
                              > Germany should also be allowed to produce them without researching
                              > them once they are fighting in Russia. If the Italians are banished to
                              > warmer climes, this would help rebalance the Russian front (one of the
                              > German 5o6s also is named after my son, so bias alert). The US gets to
                              > build 5o6 armor units without research, so it makes sense to allow
                              > Germany to do so - once they seen the need for it after encountering
                              > the new Russia tanks. Maybe in the year following the outbreak of war
                              > between Germany and Russia.
                              >



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • donmoody@pro-ns.net
                              ... Forum volume has been intense lately. Read these two messages to quickly catch up to where the current rules discussion is:
                              Message 14 of 25 , Apr 29 5:43 PM
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mike Crowe:

                                > I am taking a chance by responding before reading the rest
                                > of today's posts, but will.

                                Forum volume has been intense lately.

                                Read these two messages to 'quickly' catch up to where the current rules
                                discussion is:

                                http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/aworldatwar/message/134052

                                http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/aworldatwar/message/134081

                                DonMoody
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.