Allied Competition

N Katsyev · 25-10-2002, 05:00

One thing i'm fearing that may happen in HoI to detract from play is simple competition among allies. By this I mean, say in the Pacific theatre, where you are the British, and your ally is the US, your ally takes a certain Japanese island with some rubber that you'd really like to have. Then, your ships spot a nice little task force the IJN has sent out to re-capture the island. Instead of sending your available forces in the area, you simply let the US get the living hell beaten out of it, lose the island, and you take it from the weakend Japanese force. Obviously this could threaten the gameplay experience with human players wanting everything for their nation, while forgetting the overall allied goals and aims of defeating the enemy. This kind of play could almost be expected in EU2, but in a game like this, it could be dangerous. Which makes me wonder, do nations win individually or do certain alliances claim victory? Axis, Allies, Comintern, like in the screenshot? Is there going to be a seperate vp structure for each nation though?

Thoughts and comments please.

KlevesWarrior · 25-10-2002, 05:07

IIRC ideologies win, so, while watching the U.S. take a beating may be fun, it will also hurt your overall chances of "winning"

John_Keats · 25-10-2002, 05:11

Also, I'd imagine that your territories go back to their original owner... so in your aforementioned example, if this was a British Island and the Americans fought the Japanese off, it would probably be liberated for British control.

N Katsyev · 25-10-2002, 05:15

"Also, I'd imagine that your territories go back to their original owner... so in your aforementioned example, if this was a British Island and the Americans fought the Japanese off, it would probably be liberated for British control."

I'm thinking thats how its going to work as well, that's why I tried to make it sound as if it were a Japanese island in the first place, maybe some obscure little island the Japanese got from Germany in WWI... I dunno.

"IIRC ideologies win, so, while watching the U.S. take a beating may be fun, it will also hurt your overall chances of "winning""

This is where the threat I was talking of comes to play, having your ally get smashed so you can improve your own country, yet lessening the chances of having a total victory.

bmdman · 25-10-2002, 06:33

There is a somewhat historical basis for Allied competition though... for example the race for Messina (Sicily) between the UK and US. It can be debated whether this competition meant the city was reached faster (because each wanted to get there first) or slower (because one side supporting the other might have overcome obstacles faster)... and also were casualties higher than othewise would have happened? After all, WW2 wasn't really the era of efficient multinational operations, and plenty of plans went wrong because nations didn't properly liaise. Anyone know if there is a multinational operations doctrine in HOI? (i think there should be!)

N Katsyev · 25-10-2002, 06:37

Good point for a historical piece of allied competition. I'm just hoping players don't attempt it all that more often to the point where it can begin to seriously hinder military operations. Like me, playing as Australia, despite the way I could probably use those trops to my own ends, will be lending control of divisions to England when I think they will need them. I'm not so sure how much people will join me in that.

Generalisimo · 25-10-2002, 15:39

Quote:

Originally posted by N Katsyev
Good point for a historical piece of allied competition. I'm just hoping players don't attempt it all that more often to the point where it can begin to seriously hinder military operations. Like me, playing as Australia, despite the way I could probably use those trops to my own ends, will be lending control of divisions to England when I think they will need them. I'm not so sure how much people will join me in that.

in my game i am going to play as Hungary, and i will fight as long as i can to help Germany win, so fascists win

no matter if i have to lend them troops or something like that.
But i think that my example is not very important, because if i let the russians destroy the german forces, they will surelly beat me after that, so Germany loose = Hungary loose.
It is not the case of US and UK, if you beat UK in some battles, the US could easilly beat you after that. This is not my case.

So, in my game i will need to have a good cooperation between fascist countries, because, if we not cooperate, we are doomed

Generalisimo · 25-10-2002, 15:41

Quote:

Originally posted by KlevesWarrior
IIRC ideologies win, so, while watching the U.S. take a beating may be fun, it will also hurt your overall chances of "winning"

this is totally true, if you let your allies loose, you can loose in the overall score.
So you have to be very carefull.

N Katsyev · 25-10-2002, 18:57

I want Generalisimo on my side!

Dr.Charm · 25-10-2002, 19:25

The race for Messina would probably be more compelling as an example of allied competition if it had existed anywhere but in Patton's mind

Cheers,

Dr. Charm

N Katsyev · 25-10-2002, 20:08

Yes, but in my original example, taking the island back only after the US got smashed was only in the UK player's mind. I think Messina was a very good example. However, as i'm thinking you might be implying, two way competition could cause even more of threat.

KrisKannon · 25-10-2002, 20:42

On the subject of Allied Competition, well, really that is as much a part of human nature as is cooperation. It really is the test of any good alliance. Sure, all alliances are strong and close in times of peace, but it is the times of war that test their strength. Any war in which two allies compete will surely bring about the collapse of the alliance either shortly before or shortly after the end of the war. Many alliances are created because two, or more, nations share a same enemy. Once that enemy is taken out there must be a new enemy. Sometimes it turns out that this new enemy was formerly one of your allies.

Off the subject of Allied Competition, Nkat, turn on your icq

N Katsyev · 25-10-2002, 20:51

New enemy? I, as Australia attacking the Dutch colonies after the fall of the Japanese Empire, you're crazy.

PBI · 25-10-2002, 21:14

Another example, perhaps even worse than Sicily, was the cock-up over army boundaries in closing the Falaise Gap in France in August '44. Almost the whole of the German 7th Army was in danger of being pocketted but a lot more men (not much equipment, granted) got out than should have if the British, or Montgomery, more precisely, hadn't refused to allow army group boundaries to be shifted so that US 3rd Army could close the gap. Some historians argue that failure to close the Gap earlier probably lengthened the war by as much as 6 months. Maybe having Allies not always work like a well-oiled machine in HoI isn't all bad?

Dr.Charm · 25-10-2002, 21:41

Once again, the fault with closing the Falaise Gap was not the fault of allied competition, not the 'not shifting the boundaries' prevented the closing, but rather, 'German defensive expertise' prevented the closing. Yes, I know much has been made of this (and everything else AFAICT

) being Monty's fault, but the actual historical evidence argues otherwise.

Cheers,

Dr. Charm

PBI · 25-10-2002, 23:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr.Charm
Once again, the fault with closing the Falaise Gap was not the fault of allied competition, not the 'not shifting the boundaries' prevented the closing, but rather, 'German defensive expertise' prevented the closing. Yes, I know much has been made of this (and everything else AFAICT ) being Monty's fault, but the actual historical evidence argues otherwise.

Cheers,

Dr. Charm

I actually am among the minority that believe that Monty was wrongly accused of dragging his feet against the Germans in Normandy. Of the 7 panzer divisions in Normandy, 6.5 were arrayed against the British and Canadians. It was my impression, however, that 3rd Army could have closed the gap earlier if they had been permitted to advance into 21st AG's area and that the delay allowed the Germans to stiffen their defences against the US part of the pincer. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time

whyamihere · 26-10-2002, 01:13

Quote:

Originally posted by John_Keats
Also, I'd imagine that your territories go back to their original owner... so in your aforementioned example, if this was a British Island and the Americans fought the Japanese off, it would probably be liberated for British control.

I hope that isn't a default setting. It would refrain you from playing a "what-if" scenerio. What-if Britain or the US had decided to carve up France after "liberating" it? I know it is very unlikely, but it should be possible, even if your democratic rating takes a huge hit. Besides which, such incidents did occur. Just look at the US and its position of troops after WW2.

I would imagine that there will be a scenerio option where-by the Allies and Axis operate as one group when it comes to VPs.

whyamihere · 26-10-2002, 01:17

Quote:

Originally posted by PBI

Of the 7 panzer divisions in Normandy, 6.5 were arrayed against the British and Canadians.

Something often omitted. British/Commonwealth troops experienced the bulk of the German forces in Normandy.

icecool · 26-10-2002, 01:52

I have a worry that the "let your Allies get screwed" may happen. But we will have to wait until HoI comes out I guess to find out how things shape up.

May be we'll all be suprised!!.

Cheers, Ice

Adam the VIth · 26-10-2002, 05:28

Getting into the Normandy discussion a bit......not exactly true statements there. Yes, Commonwealth forces faced most of the panzers for the first four weeks. However, this was mainly due ot the fact that American forces were slogging through bocage, which is not good tank country. Also, U.S. had to lay seige to Cherbourg.
Then the counterattack at Mortain, which destroyed much german armor....at that point all the panzers were thrown at the U.S. forces.
Moral of story: it was truly an ALLIED victory!

25-10-2002, 05:00	#1
N Katsyev Katzanova Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Charles Towne, Carolina colony Posts: 2,032	Allied Competition One thing i'm fearing that may happen in HoI to detract from play is simple competition among allies. By this I mean, say in the Pacific theatre, where you are the British, and your ally is the US, your ally takes a certain Japanese island with some rubber that you'd really like to have. Then, your ships spot a nice little task force the IJN has sent out to re-capture the island. Instead of sending your available forces in the area, you simply let the US get the living hell beaten out of it, lose the island, and you take it from the weakend Japanese force. Obviously this could threaten the gameplay experience with human players wanting everything for their nation, while forgetting the overall allied goals and aims of defeating the enemy. This kind of play could almost be expected in EU2, but in a game like this, it could be dangerous. Which makes me wonder, do nations win individually or do certain alliances claim victory? Axis, Allies, Comintern, like in the screenshot? Is there going to be a seperate vp structure for each nation though? Thoughts and comments please. __________________ "Our greatest illusion is to believe that we are what we think ourselves to be." - H.F. Amiel, The Private Journal of Henri Frédéric Amiel. "Honk if you love Jesus, text while driving if you want to meet him."

25-10-2002, 05:07	#2
KlevesWarrior An Officer and a Gentleman Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: People's Republic of Kleves Posts: 1,711	IIRC ideologies win, so, while watching the U.S. take a beating may be fun, it will also hurt your overall chances of "winning" __________________ And thus I clothe my naked villainy With old odd ends stolen forth from holy writ And seem a saint when most I play the devil

25-10-2002, 05:11	#3
John_Keats Lt. General Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Under the Sea, cruising in my Sea Car Posts: 1,402	Also, I'd imagine that your territories go back to their original owner... so in your aforementioned example, if this was a British Island and the Americans fought the Japanese off, it would probably be liberated for British control. __________________ "Your eyes are burning holes through me." R.E.M.

25-10-2002, 05:15	#4
N Katsyev Katzanova Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Charles Towne, Carolina colony Posts: 2,032	"Also, I'd imagine that your territories go back to their original owner... so in your aforementioned example, if this was a British Island and the Americans fought the Japanese off, it would probably be liberated for British control." I'm thinking thats how its going to work as well, that's why I tried to make it sound as if it were a Japanese island in the first place, maybe some obscure little island the Japanese got from Germany in WWI... I dunno. "IIRC ideologies win, so, while watching the U.S. take a beating may be fun, it will also hurt your overall chances of "winning"" This is where the threat I was talking of comes to play, having your ally get smashed so you can improve your own country, yet lessening the chances of having a total victory. __________________ "Our greatest illusion is to believe that we are what we think ourselves to be." - H.F. Amiel, The Private Journal of Henri Frédéric Amiel. "Honk if you love Jesus, text while driving if you want to meet him."

25-10-2002, 06:37	#6
N Katsyev Katzanova Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Charles Towne, Carolina colony Posts: 2,032	Good point for a historical piece of allied competition. I'm just hoping players don't attempt it all that more often to the point where it can begin to seriously hinder military operations. Like me, playing as Australia, despite the way I could probably use those trops to my own ends, will be lending control of divisions to England when I think they will need them. I'm not so sure how much people will join me in that. __________________ "Our greatest illusion is to believe that we are what we think ourselves to be." - H.F. Amiel, The Private Journal of Henri Frédéric Amiel. "Honk if you love Jesus, text while driving if you want to meet him."

25-10-2002, 06:33	#5
bmdman Sergeant Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: England's Green and Pleasant Land Posts: 97	There is a somewhat historical basis for Allied competition though... for example the race for Messina (Sicily) between the UK and US. It can be debated whether this competition meant the city was reached faster (because each wanted to get there first) or slower (because one side supporting the other might have overcome obstacles faster)... and also were casualties higher than othewise would have happened? After all, WW2 wasn't really the era of efficient multinational operations, and plenty of plans went wrong because nations didn't properly liaise. Anyone know if there is a multinational operations doctrine in HOI? (i think there should be!)

25-10-2002, 18:57	#9
N Katsyev Katzanova Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Charles Towne, Carolina colony Posts: 2,032	I want Generalisimo on my side! __________________ "Our greatest illusion is to believe that we are what we think ourselves to be." - H.F. Amiel, The Private Journal of Henri Frédéric Amiel. "Honk if you love Jesus, text while driving if you want to meet him."

25-10-2002, 19:25	#10
Dr.Charm Captain Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 322	The race for Messina would probably be more compelling as an example of allied competition if it had existed anywhere but in Patton's mind Cheers, Dr. Charm

25-10-2002, 20:08	#11
N Katsyev Katzanova Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Charles Towne, Carolina colony Posts: 2,032	Yes, but in my original example, taking the island back only after the US got smashed was only in the UK player's mind. I think Messina was a very good example. However, as i'm thinking you might be implying, two way competition could cause even more of threat. __________________ "Our greatest illusion is to believe that we are what we think ourselves to be." - H.F. Amiel, The Private Journal of Henri Frédéric Amiel. "Honk if you love Jesus, text while driving if you want to meet him."

25-10-2002, 20:42	#12
KrisKannon Imfamous Warmonger Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: On my way to the land of 1,000 posts Posts: 834	On the subject of Allied Competition, well, really that is as much a part of human nature as is cooperation. It really is the test of any good alliance. Sure, all alliances are strong and close in times of peace, but it is the times of war that test their strength. Any war in which two allies compete will surely bring about the collapse of the alliance either shortly before or shortly after the end of the war. Many alliances are created because two, or more, nations share a same enemy. Once that enemy is taken out there must be a new enemy. Sometimes it turns out that this new enemy was formerly one of your allies. Off the subject of Allied Competition, Nkat, turn on your icq __________________ KK

25-10-2002, 20:51	#13
N Katsyev Katzanova Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Charles Towne, Carolina colony Posts: 2,032	New enemy? I, as Australia attacking the Dutch colonies after the fall of the Japanese Empire, you're crazy. __________________ "Our greatest illusion is to believe that we are what we think ourselves to be." - H.F. Amiel, The Private Journal of Henri Frédéric Amiel. "Honk if you love Jesus, text while driving if you want to meet him."

25-10-2002, 21:14	#14
PBI Colonel Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 874	Another example, perhaps even worse than Sicily, was the cock-up over army boundaries in closing the Falaise Gap in France in August '44. Almost the whole of the German 7th Army was in danger of being pocketted but a lot more men (not much equipment, granted) got out than should have if the British, or Montgomery, more precisely, hadn't refused to allow army group boundaries to be shifted so that US 3rd Army could close the gap. Some historians argue that failure to close the Gap earlier probably lengthened the war by as much as 6 months. Maybe having Allies not always work like a well-oiled machine in HoI isn't all bad? __________________ If you can survive death, you can probably survive almost anything.

25-10-2002, 21:41	#15
Dr.Charm Captain Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 322	Once again, the fault with closing the Falaise Gap was not the fault of allied competition, not the 'not shifting the boundaries' prevented the closing, but rather, 'German defensive expertise' prevented the closing. Yes, I know much has been made of this (and everything else AFAICT ) being Monty's fault, but the actual historical evidence argues otherwise. Cheers, Dr. Charm

26-10-2002, 01:52	#19
icecool Banned Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California, USA Posts: 989	I have a worry that the "let your Allies get screwed" may happen. But we will have to wait until HoI comes out I guess to find out how things shape up. May be we'll all be suprised!!. Cheers, Ice

26-10-2002, 05:28	#20
Adam the VIth First Lieutenant Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 201	Getting into the Normandy discussion a bit......not exactly true statements there. Yes, Commonwealth forces faced most of the panzers for the first four weeks. However, this was mainly due ot the fact that American forces were slogging through bocage, which is not good tank country. Also, U.S. had to lay seige to Cherbourg. Then the counterattack at Mortain, which destroyed much german armor....at that point all the panzers were thrown at the U.S. forces. Moral of story: it was truly an ALLIED victory! __________________ "Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it."-- George Satayana. "To know the road ahead, ask those coming back." -- Chinese proverb.