Aussie Group Rules discussion.

[unmerged(5892)]

That list is fine by me.

I'd suggest a few additions of varying importance:

Auto-promote for leaders (ie, we don't use it currently).

Province trading: Certain provinces should not change hands (eg, certain UK regions fire US gearing events if not UK controlled, eg, if sold to Canada).

No peace deals between major powers that are not published to all players prior to being accepted. Group consensus decides the issue.

 

[Majorball]

That list is fine by me.

I'd suggest a few additions of varying importance:

Auto-promote for leaders (ie, we don't use it currently).

Province trading: Certain provinces should not change hands (eg, certain UK regions fire US gearing events if not UK controlled, eg, if sold to Canada).

No peace deals between major powers that are not published to all players prior to being accepted. Group consensus decides the issue.

I say no peace deals with Human players other than through events...which happens for every country until 1945.

Whats the problem of auto promote?

I will look into provinces for such things.

 

[unmerged(5892)]

I say no peace deals with Human players other than through events...which happens for every country until 1945.

Whats the problem of auto promote?

I will look into provinces for such things.

Auto-promote is not something I feel particularly strong about, however our rules have (hitherto) included a ban on using it, as it goes a long way to taking away historical leadership advantages, notably for Germany, and makes the USSR far easier to play with the purge.

As long as we all play by the same rules though, I'm not fussed, but for the moment, I'm not using it in any games.

 

[Majorball]

Clause to be added into the rules:

All games to be played until a group vote decides otherwise. A tie means the game will contiue. Players must abide by the vote if they wish to continue playing in the Aussie group

Before I do are there any objections or discussions?

All players that would like a word document copy of the Aussie rules let me know and PM your email in private if Ido not have it.

 

[mike8472]

Sounds good and a needed rule. A defensive war is also very fun to play.

 

[unmerged(25040)]

husty

Rules

Ok, but still allows axis uber stack of any size to be in Africa in early 41.

I just dont think its realistic that 65 axis divs would be in the nile...

I really dont...

and this could happen with very few CW units in theatre and especially so with a human spanish player, mean ing Gib will fall.

Indeed Gib will fall in any siutation where Spain is a player or its attacked by Germs. Thats okay, but makes defence of Nile much much harder..

Thus Nile would fall - blah blah blah.

I have no problem with Nile falling to a generally Italian Army.

 

[Majorball]

Rules

Ok, but still allows axis uber stack of any size to be in Africa in early 41.

I just dont think its realistic that 65 axis divs would be in the nile...

I really dont...

and this could happen with very few CW units in theatre and especially so with a human spanish player, mean ing Gib will fall.

Indeed Gib will fall in any siutation where Spain is a player or its attacked by Germs. Thats okay, but makes defence of Nile much much harder..

Thus Nile would fall - blah blah blah.

I have no problem with Nile falling to a generally Italian Army.

Well with the late war entry of Italy, German troops wont be in Africa before April 1940 and thats only if they are not required somewhere else.
I have been thinking of a garrision limit for the Russia border should Russia be offered a NAP.

If Germany had to maintain say 50 German divisions on the east front wether they are at war with Russia or not it would certainly cut down the number of Germans massing key targets in Spain and Africa from 1940 onwards.

Just a thought see what others say. I cant see it being unrealistic.

Anyway the UK cannot hold Gilbralter but they certainly can hold the Suez.

The way Nolan has played is probably how it should be played. The Germans can hardly afford massive Amries in Spain, Africa or for Sealion with the RED threat from the east. It may be at his cost but maybe we need more of this and any Guarantees of no war in the East must favour the Germans if they can move all their armies against the west becasue the have a NAP with the Russians. The only way Germany can take Gilbralter is with massive force and this cannot be done if they know the Red army can attack them anyday.

 

[mike8472]

Well with the late war entry of Italy, German troops wont be in Africa before April 1940 and thats only if they are not required somewhere else.
I have been thinking of a garrision limit for the Russia border should Russia be offered a NAP.

If Germany had to maintain say 50 German divisions on the east front wether they are at war with Russia or not it would certainly cut down the number of Germans massing key targets in Spain and Africa from 1940 onwards.

Just a thought see what others say. I cant see it being unrealistic.

Anyway the UK cannot hold Gilbralter but they certainly can hold the Suez.

The way Nolan has played is probably how it should be played. The Germans can hardly afford massive Amries in Spain, Africa or for Sealion with the RED threat from the east. It may be at his cost but maybe we need more of this and any Guarantees of no war in the East must favour the Germans if they can move all their armies against the west becasue the have a NAP with the Russians. The only way Germany can take Gilbralter is with massive force and this cannot be done if they know the Red army can attack them anyday.

A few points before this gets little out of hand.

Our current rules with Italy joining late are more then enough to prevent Germany sending lots of forces to africa. All the UK play has to do is maintain control of the sea like they should an no german player will risk his panzers out on the ocean.

It simply to hard to say Germany cant send more forces to africa if required. If the RN is defeated in battles and they lose then command of the seas passes to the axis and they should be able to move as much as they like. If the RN keeps the sea, well this is why the UK has a navy to prevent this.

If you want to Keep german forces to say historic levels then youm ust also limit the UK & CW forces. In nearly every game we have played there are always 80-90 allied divisions, in one game i remeber 120 in africa alone. Germany has only sent large forces to africa on occiasion it is far from the norm. Most games im germany which is most, i send the bare minimum to africa.

There is simply no way Italy can take on the combined might of the UK/Australia/Canada/South Africa/Kiwis and the assortment of ME nations. And this is where the UK puts it best units. Italy has no chance at all. So before we go limiting german forces come up with a way to limit both German and Allied forces in the med to historic levels so the allies and italy can have a good fight. At present there is no reason for italy to bother fighting in africa, they will never get through without massive german help.

With the German garrisions, its a good idea but wont make much of a difference. In all games i play once ive got France most of the cream of my army goes to poland. If i go into Spain then alot of inf/mout will go there, but all the armour and mot to poland.

For example in the Game where i took spain and then gibralter from major, most of my armour which consisted of about 40+ lvl III tanks and 45+ motorised divisions where either sitting in warsaw or berlin doing nothing for most of the game. With the garrision troops already in poland germany can easily have 100 divisions in the east for most of the game.

This will never stop Germany taking Spain or Gibralter. Try to think along these lines. UK wants to keep Gibralter and spain out, ok. Do a deal with Germany guranteeing no invasions until june 1944 in europe. Germany has to garrision every beach with 1 division, and this allows Germany to focus on the USSR. At lest then we wont get a gamel ike last where gunny was stretched to thin in the west. gives germany and russia a few to fight it out between themselves and decide the war. It should be really be germany and the USSR that the fate of the axis is decided, either germany thorugh good game play wins or it dosnt, easy.

Sure the USSR may come under more preasure but they would anyway from alot more German troops no garrisioning Gibralter/Spain & Portugal. If the UK offered me this deal it would be hard to refuse. Ofcourse you can still bomb and fight in the air and sea and keep preasure on germany from the air like the allies did.

Actualy what nolan did was good for me. It has turned out rather well for Germany. Having 220 divisions all 39 ready for the start of war was a big eye opener, combine this with 40+ interceptore which 30 are lvl IV, 12 tacs and CAS and thats an impressive force. Had it been a normal game with the deals with Russia Germany could storm France with a massive force of about 160 divisions while still using 60 german aginst the poles and the 30 hungarian. You could even do a holding action against the poles and put 200 divisions into france and leave 50 in the east just to slowly push the poles back. Was very interesting. If you want to leave building even more planes unit later with the cheaper techs Germany could field 250-60 all 39 divisions by war.

 

[mike8472]

Bump.

Good time to add some suggestions to these rules and so all can read and make suggestions.

 

[unmerged(16810)]

We must get rid of that stupid 'No commonwealth troops in the Med till Italy joins' rule.

Why should the UK be restricted like this when no other power is?

Why should the movement of Allied forces be up to an Axis player?

To say it is for fairness is total rubbish as the Germans always send overwhelming forces to the med to bust the Allied position wide open every time so whats the point?

Its just another stupid rule made up by stupid players to make themselves feel important.

The dumbing down of the game over the past few years has taken much from the game. Like fixed war entry dates (danzig asside) and all the stupid little rules that dumb players need because they are so imature they cannot play within the 'Spirit of the game' as adults without exploiting.

GROW UP GUYS!!!... and play like men not spoilt little girls!!!!


_______________________

 

[mike8472]

We must get rid of that stupid 'No commonwealth troops in the Med till Italy joins' rule.

Why should the UK be restricted like this when no other power is?

Why should the movement of Allied forces be up to an Axis player?

To say it is for fairness is total rubbish as the Germans always send overwhelming forces to the med to bust the Allied position wide open every time so whats the point?

Its just another stupid rule made up by stupid players to make themselves feel important.

The dumbing down of the game over the past few years has taken much from the game. Like fixed war entry dates (danzig asside) and all the stupid little rules that dumb players need because they are so imature they cannot play within the 'Spirit of the game' as adults without exploiting.

GROW UP GUYS!!!... and play like men not spoilt little girls!!!!
_______________________

I also favor minium rules nolan.

I think for every option the axis have there are equal strategies to counter it, you just need to work it out.

For instance. To plan to defend the middle east, it is not large amour forces you need but a powerful fleet and airforce to stop the Germans going to africa. You do that and you hold africa. The Germans wont risk sending there armour if Italy cant gurantee there safe transport, imagine if you sink 18 armour at sea, ouch.

If the UK want to mass huge forces in Africa, thats ok the Axis can go for the invasion of the UK.

Remeber though nolan, you take away the rules for the UK, it also takes the rules away for the axis. So the UK could face Italy/Germany/Spain in September 1939. The main reason we limit Italian entry and CW forces is to stop both UK and Axis players massing CW and German tanks in egypt prior to war.

Do you prefer to scrap these rules and just allow open season here. All I see happening is German intervention earlier, unless UK controls the seas and air.

To be honest in our games I think the UK players neglect there navy thinking there starting navies are enough. I think that will change.

 

[unmerged(16810)]

Well by your example Mike all the Brits just have to do is buy a navy off the yanks.

Look up the definition of 'Spirit of the game' Mike.
Just because you can do it dosn,t mean you have to.


____________________

 

[mike8472]

Well by your example Mike all the Brits just have to do is buy a navy off the yanks.

Look up the definition of 'Spirit of the game' Mike.
Just because you can do it dosn,t mean you have to.

____________________

You could do that nolan if you can pay for it. Im not sure if it would be cheaper or more expensive. I thought the UK would be cheaper to build it for itself due to sliders.

What you think is in the spirit of the game is open to interpration by everyone. Why do you think when we have heated debates we always have different opinions. Its becuase we all see things differently from our point of view. So what you consider to be fair, some one else may see it as not.

Good example is gunny the other night, he thought he was being fair were you guys did not. It was all to do with your perspective and I can see how both sides have a good argument.

This is why we do need some limited rules to force some standards upon people to what we all think is fair.

From my point of view the situation in the middle east or africa should be free flowing. I think keeping Italy out of the war till march 1940 is still a good idea along with spain. However perhpas restrictions on force movements from the CW should be lifted.

I do not think anyone has the right to complain about German intervention in Africa. It is preventable. To me the most strategic bits of land in the middle east are not Gibralter or the suez. If the enemy takes gibralter its not the end of the world. If they reach the suez well you have already lost.

The most important to me are Malta and Crete. If the UK can hold these and use its airpower to just break even, you dont even need to win the air, your fleets are safe and can prevent any german forces reaching the middle east.

The only reason rommel did not win in africa is due to the UK naval and air presence preventing the axis moving larger forces, alot was sunk on the way to afirca. If you are not prepared to do this as a player, then do not complain about it. Im sure 6 Garrision with artillery would be very hard to dislodge from malta with lvl 10 forts. With a good air base and port malta is the most strategic point in the entire med due to its ability to interdict fleets and air base. It is the biggest thorn in Italys behind.

So do we want to lift the CW restrictions on movement of units? Do we want all open DOW's after Danzig?

 

[Majorball]

It is impossible for the UK on its own to build an airforce big enough to stop Germans getting into Africa. German air alone would be enough to stop the allies and their navy.

I do believe if we have a Nationalist Spain player as a human player the UK should be under no restrictions at all in regards to moving CW troops. After all its hard enough for the UK already when Gilbralter falls so they really only have the middle east to defend.

The UK alone cannot stop German troops to Africa...even more so when Gilbralter falls.

I am with Nolan here....

I would like to see the following implemented:

1/The UK can move CW forces at any time if their is a human Nationalist Spain player(Gilbralter falling is a big handicap)

2/If the Italians go war mongering in the med by declaring war on Yugoslavia, Greece etc before entering German alliance then the UK should be permitted to move CW forces to the med to counter this impending hostile activity.

Just my thoughts...

 

[mike8472]

It is impossible for the UK on its own to build an airforce big enough to stop Germans getting into Africa. German air alone would be enough to stop the allies and their navy.

I do believe if we have a Nationalist Spain player as a human player the UK should be under no restrictions at all in regards to moving CW troops. After all its hard enough for the UK already when Gilbralter falls so they really only have the middle east to defend.

The UK alone cannot stop German troops to Africa...even more so when Gilbralter falls.

I am with Nolan here....

I would like to see the following implemented:

1/The UK can move CW forces at any time if their is a human Nationalist Spain player(Gilbralter falling is a big handicap)

2/If the Italians go war mongering in the med by declaring war on Yugoslavia, Greece etc before entering German alliance then the UK should be permitted to move CW forces to the med to counter this impending hostile activity.

Just my thoughts...

I disagree on the Air units. I have done it as the UK, held of the axis swarms right over malta and controlled that area. By doing that I controlled Egypt. I did that in one of my last games where I was the UK. In the same game I also bombed the crap out of German industry numerious times reducing it by 100-150 IC. I did all of this with no US and the same CW rules as now. So dont tell me it cant be done. It depends on your tactics, strategies and how you want to play the game. In that particular game I gave air and naval the importance it needed with the army third.

I do agree like I said in the above posts that I think the CW restrictions should be lifted. However so should Italian war entry, other wise the allies know exactly when Italy joins and there is no suprise. The Uk can plane a big defence as it knows when to expect the attack. If the Italian war entry is left open then the UK has to chose were to defend with its large CW forces what forces as it should be.

Nolan is right, we do have to many rules and restrictions. Often our rules unbalance the game further as they are made in haste to events from 1 game.

My point of view is probably all except gibralter, everything else can be held with the right forces. Gibralter will never hold if the germans really want it which of course the do. However Malta, Egpyt and the Seuz are all able to be held.

From a German perspective I would never dare send forces to the middle east if the UK player at least put up a strong defence around malta with air and ships. The risks are simply to great to risk expensive panzers. Its only in most of our games no one really tries to defend that area. Not to pump myself up but I only seen myself and major defend that area in a handful of games.

So in conclusion yes I agree, there should be no restrictions on CW forces or War entry for Italy.

 

[Majorball]

I disagree on the Air units. I have done it as the UK, held of the axis swarms right over malta and controlled that area. By doing that I controlled Egypt. I did that in one of my last games where I was the UK. In the same game I also bombed the crap out of German industry numerious times reducing it by 100-150 IC. I did all of this with no US and the same CW rules as now. So dont tell me it cant be done. It depends on your tactics, strategies and how you want to play the game. In that particular game I gave air and naval the importance it needed with the army third.

I do agree like I said in the above posts that I think the CW restrictions should be lifted. However so should Italian war entry, other wise the allies know exactly when Italy joins and there is no suprise. The Uk can plane a big defence as it knows when to expect the attack. If the Italian war entry is left open then the UK has to chose were to defend with its large CW forces what forces as it should be.

Nolan is right, we do have to many rules and restrictions. Often our rules unbalance the game further as they are made in haste to events from 1 game.

My point of view is probably all except gibralter, everything else can be held with the right forces. Gibralter will never hold if the germans really want it which of course the do. However Malta, Egpyt and the Seuz are all able to be held.

From a German perspective I would never dare send forces to the middle east if the UK player at least put up a strong defence around malta with air and ships. The risks are simply to great to risk expensive panzers. Its only in most of our games no one really tries to defend that area. Not to pump myself up but I only seen myself and major defend that area in a handful of games.

So in conclusion yes I agree, there should be no restrictions on CW forces or War entry for Italy.

And how experienced was the german player you were playing?????

But I also agree there should not be any restrictions on Italian entry if CW forces can be moved prior.

 

[mike8472]

And how experienced was the german player you were playing?????

But I also agree there should not be any restrictions on Italian entry if CW forces can be moved prior.

The player had good experience and still plays now.

If the others want this lifted then we can do it for the next game.

What about other DOW dates and rules, any changes.

 

[unmerged(59421)]

A couple of things. The main reason for our rules is to keep it semi-historical and give all powers a fair chance so that we all have some fun. In regards to the CW forces/Italy. If my history is correct then when Germany went to war with Poland, Australian and I think Kiwi forces were deployed to Egypt were they underwent training for an intervention in Germany. Naturally they were formed into the 8th army that fought the Italians and seized Tobruk ect ect, and were later recalled to stem the Japanese onslaught in the Pacific. My suggestion is that we keep the Italian entry date the same, but we lift the restrictions on the Australian and perhaps the Kiwi forces and allow them to be moved when Germany goes to war over Poland. That way the 8th army is already deployed in the mid east and Egypt and entrenched by the time Italy joins the war. If there is a human Nationalist Spain then by all means I would aggree to lifting the restrictions on all CW forces.

The other thing that I think may need to be addressed is USA trading with allied nations before they are in the war. This shouldn't be a big impact because it affects the USA only and no other country. Historically USA didn't want to get involved in another European war so they kept a sought of closed society policy in regards to this. Even though they were selling arms and munitions ect ect to both the allies and axis. But I have seen games were USA supplies UK from day one and UK doesn't pay a cent for supplies all game. UK had 80 interceptors and 40 lvl 1 to 3 class armour at september 39. Moral of the story is that a USA paying UK's supply cost all game heavily unbalances the game in the allies favour. I suggest that there be perhaps a minimum of 80-90 percent trade efficency on any trades to the USA by human controlled nation of either allied or axis origin. So no more USA gives Australia all the supplies and resources they need for free, Australia must pay for them at a 80-90 trade efficency until USA is acctually part of the Allies in 41. Just food for thought guys, you don't have to like them just read them and aggree bitches. SE.

 

[Majorball]

A couple of things. The main reason for our rules is to keep it semi-historical and give all powers a fair chance so that we all have some fun. In regards to the CW forces/Italy. If my history is correct then when Germany went to war with Poland, Australian and I think Kiwi forces were deployed to Egypt were they underwent training for an intervention in Germany. Naturally they were formed into the 8th army that fought the Italians and seized Tobruk ect ect, and were later recalled to stem the Japanese onslaught in the Pacific. My suggestion is that we keep the Italian entry date the same, but we lift the restrictions on the Australian and perhaps the Kiwi forces and allow them to be moved when Germany goes to war over Poland. That way the 8th army is already deployed in the mid east and Egypt and entrenched by the time Italy joins the war. If there is a human Nationalist Spain then by all means I would aggree to lifting the restrictions on all CW forces.

The other thing that I think may need to be addressed is USA trading with allied nations before they are in the war. This shouldn't be a big impact because it affects the USA only and no other country. Historically USA didn't want to get involved in another European war so they kept a sought of closed society policy in regards to this. Even though they were selling arms and munitions ect ect to both the allies and axis. But I have seen games were USA supplies UK from day one and UK doesn't pay a cent for supplies all game. UK had 80 interceptors and 40 lvl 1 to 3 class armour at september 39. Moral of the story is that a USA paying UK's supply cost all game heavily unbalances the game in the allies favour. I suggest that there be perhaps a minimum of 80-90 percent trade efficency on any trades to the USA by human controlled nation of either allied or axis origin. So no more USA gives Australia all the supplies and resources they need for free, Australia must pay for them at a 80-90 trade efficency until USA is acctually part of the Allies in 41. Just food for thought guys, you don't have to like them just read them and aggree bitches. SE.

I dont agree.....whatever USA gives is less they got for themselves. Axis do same thing between themselves. I say leave it as is.

In relation to CW in Middle East...We should look for more freedom for both sides.

 

[unmerged(16810)]

The Axis powers are as free to trade as are the Allies. If Germany wants to send supplies ect. to her future Allies then she can too. Nothing unfair there. (I know that the opposite applies to Mike when as Germany as he bleeds all his minors (human or ai) dry

We dont need trade restriction rules. A currant game prooves this where a UK player is refusing any assistance from a US player as opposed to another game when an almost exclusive Axis player who was playing UK a few games ago was the worst offender in demanding sups and resourses for the UK. ( no names mentioned )




___________________