It would be nice if Italy could get some help in Africa from Germany and it seems that the only way this will happen is by event so it would be nice if there was some way that the DAK could be created in Africa.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Lazaruslong said:
We are not going to have mystical creations of land units, unless they cannot be created otherwize (such as an army in exile). Reasons for this are, we have read many 'complaints' with other mods who have used such systems, where people have successfully blocaded an entire continent, yet, due to the event system, units kept on popping up. It makes absolutely no sense for Rommel to get to Africa, if the British have completely locked off the Medeterranian, with the Italian navy hidden in port. How exactly did the troops get there?
There are just too many complications for such things, that CORE has decided to avoid them as much as possible.
an army in exile - my heart beats a little faster....
"Jeszcze Polska nie zgineła póki my żyjemy"
Join up to fight for the Polish cause!
The Polish Army in Exile Events Chain
"Jeszcze Polska nie zgineła póki my żyjemy"
Join up to fight for the Polish cause!
The Polish Army in Exile Events Chain
Have been on holiday (snowboarding in France, YEAH!), so just checking up.
I am doing research for CORE at the moment, but much of my research depends on how the tech system will be revised (please, whoever is responsible for this, contact me at: drakentijn@yahoo.com). I do think, having read the above posts, that much can be said for NOT creating the DAK. However, if CORE eliminates the DAK, personally I see no reason for allowing armies-in-exile. I cannot think why creating armies-in-exile will be less problematic than the creation of the DAK. Also, there is already room for this anyway; after Poland has allied itself with Britain/ France, it can ship (they do need TRA for this!!), it can ship part of it's army to Britain. Same goes for the airforce (much more useful in British hands anyway). Poland can than donate these forces to Britain, or they can be confiscated (?) after the Polish surrender. This makes much more sense, and is more in line with history: all armies/units-in-exile were fully integrated in the British armed forces and operated under their command. So, I am very wary of armies-in-exile... But I am curious how everything will turn out!!
To make a more positive note (ie. contribute something, instead of shooting down somebody else's ideas): is there a provision for all kinds of events that did happen, but were not realised? For example, will Adolf try to convince Franco to jointly attack British forces? Can't remember whether this was possible in CORE-HoI 1... It should be integrated, since it is historical, and is interesting for gameplay-reasons. The same goes for Iraq: will there be a German attempt to wretch it out of British control?
Other suggestions:
German special forces played significant roles in all kinds of theatres berfore and during the war. If there is an event for Norway/ Britain about the heavy water-shipments to Germany (raided by Norwegian resistance and the SAS), there should also be events for the following:
- EVENT: before the war, there was a German expedition sent to Tibet. It was meant to find out whether the roots of the "Arian race" lied in Tibet, as well as trying to establish diplomatic ties with Lhasa. German liaison officers pointed out to Tibetan officials that both of their countries worshipped the swastika, and both opposed British foreign politics. Since foreigners were often not even allowed into the country, their arrival in Lhasa was a propaganda-coup in itself, but apart from a praising letter for the Führer, and propaganda-films, nothing much was gained eventually.
SUGGESTION: there is much evidence that German officials tried hard to gain a foothold in Tibet, and wanted it to establish formal relations (indeed, even an alliance!) with Tibet. Maybe an event can be created in which Tibet opts for a "no!" to german courting, "create alliance!" in which technological assistance (blueprints, supplies, resources, several commanders and maybe 1 MTN, 1 GAR/INF/MIL) is donated to win over the Tibetans, or a watered down version of things.
This was indeed a threat: British intelligence -counting on the Tibetans to refuse access to all foreigners- was taken by surprise by the allowance of German officials. Most likely the Tibetans were interested in trying to find out what these foreigners meant by using swastika as a (political) symbol. Indeed, their open dislike for the Brits must have been welcome for Tibet -the regime had worked desperately to keep the British out of Tibet. Never before was there a group of Europeans that claimed a "natural bond" between the 2 people, instead of claiming dominance (which was exactly what the Germans tried anyway). The political, cultural and geographical state of Tibet made it very possible indeed to influence the country. One only needed to "convince" the Dalaï Lama...
-EVENT: Likewise, Germany tried to exert influence in Afghanistan, dating as far back as 1934! (although now I'm not sure about the date...)
Most attempts were not really succesful, but IMHO Afghanistan should not be made a puppet of Britain, as it is in the vanilla version of the game. This simply was not true!! Indeed, anti-British sentiments were running high in Afghanistan, already having defeated the Brits before...
SUGGESTION: there should be an event in which Germany tries to oust the relatively pro-British government for a pro-German one. M<aybe different options, ranging from a full-blown alliance with either Britain or Germany, to a neutral stance and anything in between. Personally, I think it should be linked somehow with the suggested Tibet-event described above, in which it is a follow-up-event; if Tibet chooses for Germany, Afghanistan might follow suit.
NOTE: the creation of a sort of neo-asian german bloc would undoubtedly create tesnions, if not panic in London. Needless to say Britain should in this case be given an "opt for war with Germany, Chamberlain falls!"-possibility. This should also have consequences for other countries; I doubt that France would be ready to follow Britain in this case, so it should leave the Allies. Furthermore, I wonder what the USSR would do (no insights...), but this would damage relations with both Germany and Britain.
Also, maybe all of the above can be linked to the "German mission to China"-event, which led to a lot of pro-German feelings in China.
SUGGESTION: to complete the pro-German bloc, Sinkiang would be a natural extension, especially since the government could already be called sort of fascist, but from what I know, there was much antipathy against Britain in
Sinkiang, and the "Send Falkenhausen to China"-event, led to a lot of pro-german feelings in China.
-EVENT: in 1941 the sjah of Persia was removed by British/US-intelligence, fearing his open admiration of Hitler might have political consequences. Needing their oil deposits and other resources, the Allies did not want to risk losing access to them, and therefore schemed up with Moscow to remove the sjah, replace him with the much more pro-western sjah Pahlavi (his son?? not sure at the moment, can't check from here, later removed from office by Khomeiny) and jointly occupy the country -the Soviets the north, the British the south.
SUGGESTION: this history should be incorporated into the above mentioned events. Maybe the coup can backfire (which, according to many sources, the British feared so much, they agreed with Soviets partially occupying the country. This put less strain on their own forces, and also made for a convenient scapegoat; they could now claim heir interference was justified to protect the country from Soviet domination). Persia would probably claim dominance in such a German-Asian alliance, but I would not know how to make that work ingame.
-EVENT: also, in 1940/41 there was much tension within Iraq, so much that even an uprising against the British occupiers happened, although to little effect. German support never reached the country in significant numbers, and so the insurrection died out.
SUGGESTION: this event should be incorporated into the above. The uprising should have a bigger chance of succeeding, when the above mentioned nations all opt for an alliance or closer ties with germany.
Allright, for now I have to quit. I like to stress that the above mentioned events should more or less be chain-linked, in other words, the outcome of one effects the (possible) outcome of the other. As an example of how it might work, I mention the "Polish colonies"-events in CORE-HoI 1, in which it was possible for Poland to obtain Liberia, and later also Madagascar as a colony. These events are at least as realsitic as the (uncompleted) scenario's I have mentioned above.
I also would like to point out that these events do not need to tip the balance to Germany at all: manpower, industrial base, infrastructure, and military power of all of the above countries is negligible. The benefits for Germany are more of a political and moral nature, then anything else. Although it should take some time, even if all of them opt for an alliance, it shouldn't be too difficult to bring the entire region firmly back under British control. The only economic benefit I can think of, is a possibilty to gain access to Persian oil, but for that to work, Germany needs to invade the USSR (hey, where have we seen this attempt before?) and -literally- connect the dots...
Also, I need to think of and investigate possible side-effects.
Alas, for now I must stop!
Yours sincerely,
King Konquer
I am doing research for CORE at the moment, but much of my research depends on how the tech system will be revised (please, whoever is responsible for this, contact me at: drakentijn@yahoo.com). I do think, having read the above posts, that much can be said for NOT creating the DAK. However, if CORE eliminates the DAK, personally I see no reason for allowing armies-in-exile. I cannot think why creating armies-in-exile will be less problematic than the creation of the DAK. Also, there is already room for this anyway; after Poland has allied itself with Britain/ France, it can ship (they do need TRA for this!!), it can ship part of it's army to Britain. Same goes for the airforce (much more useful in British hands anyway). Poland can than donate these forces to Britain, or they can be confiscated (?) after the Polish surrender. This makes much more sense, and is more in line with history: all armies/units-in-exile were fully integrated in the British armed forces and operated under their command. So, I am very wary of armies-in-exile... But I am curious how everything will turn out!!
To make a more positive note (ie. contribute something, instead of shooting down somebody else's ideas): is there a provision for all kinds of events that did happen, but were not realised? For example, will Adolf try to convince Franco to jointly attack British forces? Can't remember whether this was possible in CORE-HoI 1... It should be integrated, since it is historical, and is interesting for gameplay-reasons. The same goes for Iraq: will there be a German attempt to wretch it out of British control?
Other suggestions:
German special forces played significant roles in all kinds of theatres berfore and during the war. If there is an event for Norway/ Britain about the heavy water-shipments to Germany (raided by Norwegian resistance and the SAS), there should also be events for the following:
- EVENT: before the war, there was a German expedition sent to Tibet. It was meant to find out whether the roots of the "Arian race" lied in Tibet, as well as trying to establish diplomatic ties with Lhasa. German liaison officers pointed out to Tibetan officials that both of their countries worshipped the swastika, and both opposed British foreign politics. Since foreigners were often not even allowed into the country, their arrival in Lhasa was a propaganda-coup in itself, but apart from a praising letter for the Führer, and propaganda-films, nothing much was gained eventually.
SUGGESTION: there is much evidence that German officials tried hard to gain a foothold in Tibet, and wanted it to establish formal relations (indeed, even an alliance!) with Tibet. Maybe an event can be created in which Tibet opts for a "no!" to german courting, "create alliance!" in which technological assistance (blueprints, supplies, resources, several commanders and maybe 1 MTN, 1 GAR/INF/MIL) is donated to win over the Tibetans, or a watered down version of things.
This was indeed a threat: British intelligence -counting on the Tibetans to refuse access to all foreigners- was taken by surprise by the allowance of German officials. Most likely the Tibetans were interested in trying to find out what these foreigners meant by using swastika as a (political) symbol. Indeed, their open dislike for the Brits must have been welcome for Tibet -the regime had worked desperately to keep the British out of Tibet. Never before was there a group of Europeans that claimed a "natural bond" between the 2 people, instead of claiming dominance (which was exactly what the Germans tried anyway). The political, cultural and geographical state of Tibet made it very possible indeed to influence the country. One only needed to "convince" the Dalaï Lama...
-EVENT: Likewise, Germany tried to exert influence in Afghanistan, dating as far back as 1934! (although now I'm not sure about the date...)
Most attempts were not really succesful, but IMHO Afghanistan should not be made a puppet of Britain, as it is in the vanilla version of the game. This simply was not true!! Indeed, anti-British sentiments were running high in Afghanistan, already having defeated the Brits before...
SUGGESTION: there should be an event in which Germany tries to oust the relatively pro-British government for a pro-German one. M<aybe different options, ranging from a full-blown alliance with either Britain or Germany, to a neutral stance and anything in between. Personally, I think it should be linked somehow with the suggested Tibet-event described above, in which it is a follow-up-event; if Tibet chooses for Germany, Afghanistan might follow suit.
NOTE: the creation of a sort of neo-asian german bloc would undoubtedly create tesnions, if not panic in London. Needless to say Britain should in this case be given an "opt for war with Germany, Chamberlain falls!"-possibility. This should also have consequences for other countries; I doubt that France would be ready to follow Britain in this case, so it should leave the Allies. Furthermore, I wonder what the USSR would do (no insights...), but this would damage relations with both Germany and Britain.
Also, maybe all of the above can be linked to the "German mission to China"-event, which led to a lot of pro-German feelings in China.
SUGGESTION: to complete the pro-German bloc, Sinkiang would be a natural extension, especially since the government could already be called sort of fascist, but from what I know, there was much antipathy against Britain in
Sinkiang, and the "Send Falkenhausen to China"-event, led to a lot of pro-german feelings in China.
-EVENT: in 1941 the sjah of Persia was removed by British/US-intelligence, fearing his open admiration of Hitler might have political consequences. Needing their oil deposits and other resources, the Allies did not want to risk losing access to them, and therefore schemed up with Moscow to remove the sjah, replace him with the much more pro-western sjah Pahlavi (his son?? not sure at the moment, can't check from here, later removed from office by Khomeiny) and jointly occupy the country -the Soviets the north, the British the south.
SUGGESTION: this history should be incorporated into the above mentioned events. Maybe the coup can backfire (which, according to many sources, the British feared so much, they agreed with Soviets partially occupying the country. This put less strain on their own forces, and also made for a convenient scapegoat; they could now claim heir interference was justified to protect the country from Soviet domination). Persia would probably claim dominance in such a German-Asian alliance, but I would not know how to make that work ingame.
-EVENT: also, in 1940/41 there was much tension within Iraq, so much that even an uprising against the British occupiers happened, although to little effect. German support never reached the country in significant numbers, and so the insurrection died out.
SUGGESTION: this event should be incorporated into the above. The uprising should have a bigger chance of succeeding, when the above mentioned nations all opt for an alliance or closer ties with germany.
Allright, for now I have to quit. I like to stress that the above mentioned events should more or less be chain-linked, in other words, the outcome of one effects the (possible) outcome of the other. As an example of how it might work, I mention the "Polish colonies"-events in CORE-HoI 1, in which it was possible for Poland to obtain Liberia, and later also Madagascar as a colony. These events are at least as realsitic as the (uncompleted) scenario's I have mentioned above.
I also would like to point out that these events do not need to tip the balance to Germany at all: manpower, industrial base, infrastructure, and military power of all of the above countries is negligible. The benefits for Germany are more of a political and moral nature, then anything else. Although it should take some time, even if all of them opt for an alliance, it shouldn't be too difficult to bring the entire region firmly back under British control. The only economic benefit I can think of, is a possibilty to gain access to Persian oil, but for that to work, Germany needs to invade the USSR (hey, where have we seen this attempt before?) and -literally- connect the dots...
Also, I need to think of and investigate possible side-effects.
Alas, for now I must stop!
Yours sincerely,
King Konquer
King Konquer said:
Well, there really is very little chance for Poland to get forces to the UK before they are over-run. Chances are, Germany will sink any transport making its way there, and previously, it would be tough to get Poland into the allies (either as Poland, or as the Allies). Sure, it could be done, but, more like an abuse than a viable option.
All armies in exile were individual soldiers who fled their conquered nation, to form up new formations in either England or France. The formations were brand new, equipped by their parent nation, from troops from various formations from Poland. The series of events will be required in order to get this MP from Poland to the Western Allies, and must result in the agreement of the neighbouring nations of Poland to allow these men through (either to be turned back, or interned). So, there is really very little in the way of abuse that can be done by the creation of these armies of exile, significantly less so than the creation of the DAK.
#1. Polish forces would be refugees, equipped and organized completely in the rear areas of Britain and/or France.
#2. The DAK was a composite force, formed in Europe, and transferred over to North Africa. Creating the DAK in North Africa causes significant problems, as, they were existing German forces merely sent to a particular theatre, while the armies in exile are now surrendered nations who really did have a major impact on the war (Poland had hundreds of thousands of soldiers fighting in Allied armies).
This can be done by supporting the Nationalists during the Civil War (having them win), and devoting a lot of money to influence Spain can get Spain to join the Axis. I personally believe that a chain of events, determining Spain's likely entry into WW2 being solely dependent on the duration of the Civil War, and it's resulting damage to the Spanish economy. Should the War have lasted 6 months, chances are, Franco would be more inclined to join a European War (for gains in France, Gilbraltar or North Africa), but, had the war lasted a long time, chances are Franco would maintain a stritcly neutral position (due to the fact it could not afford another war).
As far as I know, Tibet was very inward looking, not really seeking territorial expansion. Joining the Axis would put them in danger from India, and quite possibly China (their army was only a few thousand, with very obsolete weaponry). Might be tough to get an alliance, but, maybe a propaganda benefit, slightly reducing dissent?
Maybe something like Iraq, possibly if Iraq is successful, or in conjunction with Iraq, Afghanistan could try itself for an uprising against British 'dominination'?
Probably depending on the situation at hand, sometimes politics was less important than strategic reality. Take Romania. Hitler supported the Paternal Autocratic government over that of a Fascist Government (during an attempted Fascist coup). Most likely, depending on the situation, Sinkiang would stick with a more traditional alliance, but, should Germany become successful in the region, it may lean toward them. However, on their own, it would be near suicide.
Iran was keen on modernizing, and depending on their loyalty to the Sjah, the military may or may not join in a revolt (especially if the Allies are doing well in the area). The Military may see the reality of things, and actually look forward to closer allied supply of military equipment with the new leadership. Like the others, it is really dependent on the situation at hand, how likely it would be for realistic German/Italian support.
Personally, I see this as the key to the other events happening. If things are successful in Iraq, then maybe the other nations may lean toward the Axis more. If Iraq falls as easily as it did (as easily as it should), then chances are, its neighbours would be more content to sit by and watch things play out.
So, pretty much a lot of good ideas here, but, maybe the order at which they appear, and the reasoning behind their triggering would be reversed (starting with Iraq, and spreading out from there, rather than ending with Iraq).
Thanks for your reply!
Your comments were not only helpful, but actually underlined my own stance. I agree that the order of things should change, but that's also because I did not specify a certain order - this was just the basic idea, and for incorporation into the game first I need to do a little more historic research before I suppose a timeline and a series of events. After that, it's to the CORE-modders to incorporate these ingame, also taking into account gameplay etc.
About armies-in-exile:
IMHO, I still DO NOT SEE ANY REASON AT ALL for incorporating armies-in-exile into the game. I see a very big problem, both for historic and gameplay reasons.
Historic:
It might very well be true that there were HUGE armies-in-exile. I can very easily name specific units whose actions have proved to be vital for the war effort. Some of those units were massive in size, some of them very small, but simply performed brilliantly. To name a few:
-Polish army-in-exile in the UK: big in size, spread out through all military branches, performed superbly during the entire war, specifically mentioning the paratroopers, armored and infantry units and all airforce squadrons;
-Czechoslovakian units: also big in size, and just as important -the expertise of Czech flyers was vital in the aerial battles of the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain;
-Dutch submarines: simply created havoc in the waters of SE-Asia amongst Japanese naval units, and managed to tie down even more;
-French army-in-exile: this one was so big and important, I don't see the need for specifics,
-Merchant fleets of occupied countries: filling up the ranks for torpedoed British tonnage, simply critical.
There were many more, but here is not the place to honor them all -it's a gaming forum. However, against these armies-in-exile who fought on the Allied side, I must point out that literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers fought on the German(/ Italian) side; some of them were pressed into service or had simply no alternative except dying (POW's/ inhabitants from the USSR) to enthousiast anti-communist volunteers (SS-divisions from Holland, Belgium, France and Scandinavian countries) and fascists (Spain, Croatia), and some expected to have more to gain from the Axis than from the Allies (Indian army-in-exile in Germany).
Some of these troops were indeed used for nothing else than guard-duty at concentration camps, or had anti-partisan/"policing" duties. But other complete divisions were among the best motivated, well-trained and most loyal Waffen SS-divisions the Germans could count on, who fought on until their complete annihilation in the brutal Battle for Berlin.
Now, it must be relatively easy to create a Czech/ Polish/ French army-in-exile, since they can be "created" after surrendering or German annexation. But how to incorporate all of those thousands of volunteers fighting on the German side (20.000 men, or 2 full divisions, for the Waffen SS from Holland alone), let alone taking into account that many of those were crack units, and others not used in active combat at all, especially since the game does not incorporate the concentration camps, the brutal occupation, let alone the horrific crimes against humanity and genocides committed by German (forces). Basically, what I mean is this:
-Yes, it is true that there were thousands of soldiers from all kinds of occupied countries fighting for BOTH sides, for very different reasons,
-but it is very difficult to incorporate them ingame, especially since there is a huge difference amongst those units concerning their motivation, moral, loyalty, fighting spirit and of course their equipment,
-furthermore, for this to work properly concerning the Axis side, some sort of "genocide/mass-murder"-mechanism needs to be created, but not only is this VERY unwantable, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE,
-there are problems for the Allied side as well; after Poland has surrendered, and a Polish army-in-exile is created, will it be Polish, British or Polish-under-British-military-control? And will the Polish gov. then magically be recreated? If it is made British, how to adjust the org/moral levels which should be very different? If it is made Polish, how to incorporate the fact that these units were trained along British lines and equipped with British equipment?,
-Furthermore, I don't see for this to work properly: it is too much micro-management for too little fun and it opens a slippery slide to some historical facts that are and can be happily ignored by the game. And how does it work anyway? What are the factors determining the creation of such an army.
Example: Although Franco did not choose to side for Germany, he felt obliged to repay the help he had received from Berlin/Rome in the Spanish civil war (he also wanted to appease the hard-liners in his government). Therefore he allowed the creation of volunteer-units that were fighting on German side on the Eastern Front. Franco forced a concession from Hitler that these forces would only be used against the USSR. These units included several infantry divisions and an air force wing. So, this force was considerable in size. But would they still appear, if Nat. Spain had NOT won the civil war? Would pro-USSR volunteer units not be far more likely in that event? And how to incorporate that these units cannot be used anywhere else but the Eastern Front?
-other problems: I foresee supply-problems,
-alternative history: what is the trigger-mechanism that lets these armies be created, do these triggers adjust according to events and what if the game starts to differ from history?
Example: Historically, POL was attacked in '39 and the Polish-army-in-exile in the UK came into being in 1940, and was a significant force on it's own from '42 onwards. A huge factor in the shape and size of the army was the stance and attitude of the German occupier towards Polish society. What if GER attacks Poland in '36? Or, what if POL opts for an alliance with GER (I have seen it happen, playing a very aggressive USSR, having attacked and annexed Persia, Turkey, Afghanistan and a Rep. Spanish victory in '38), and Poland is not occupied at all? And if Germany would have behaved differently, would that have changed the number and quality of volunteers?
Example 2: What would happen if other-than-historical countries are attacked and/or annexed, or if the aggressor is different from their historical counterpart? Would a German occupation of Switzerland have led to an Anschluss 2 (creating a huge force for Germany) or to a massive flux of Swiss longing to fight their German counterparts (force for the allies)?
These are my biggest objections, and I do not think that, apart from certain specific events that were very important historically speaking, I can be easily persuaded. I am convinced that installing this mechanism can lead to many problems, for little or too few benefits, although the idea looks very attractive at first sight.
However, there are some historic events that were indeed very influential, and might deserve some attention, but should be incorporated ingame along with some other events. And I do want to contribute something, so here are my suggestions in case this mechanism is created somehow.
-polish surrender: after Poland has surrendered, it should just trigger a "polish unit mobilised!"-event, in which the UK receives a "free" INF/PAR/STR/TAC/FTR unit every year/according to historical timeline (just as GER receives 2 ARM-units after annexing CZE). After Poland is liberated (and the USSR agrees!!), these units should change ownership into Polish hands. But even then I am not in favor of this...
-Russian/ anti-bolshewist units: operation Barbarossa opened up an influx of anti-communist volunteers from all over (occupied) europe, wanting to fight alongside Germany. At the same time, the first half year of the invasion proved very succesful in capturing Soviet material, equipment and soldiers- and Germans were initially taken by surprise about how low Russian moral was. The usable equipment was quickly absorbed in the army, and was extremely important, for Russian equipment was much better suited for use on the harsh eastern front, and it was readily available, not having to be shipped towards the frontline along overstretched supplylines. This in turn opened up a possibility for creating an anti-communist army-in-exile. Actually created (to be led by Vlassov), it never materialized. But many (not a majority as far as I know of)historians agree that if Hitler would have played this card right, he would not have missed out in what could have been a HUGE contributor for drained german manpower.
I suggest that when Hitler orders the invasion of the USSR, automatically Germany receives the following units: 2 CAV (or 1 CAV, 1 L.ARM), 5 INF (or 3 INF, 1 MOT, 3 GAR), 5 MIL, 1 FTR, 1 CAS/ 1 TAC. These represent the influx of volunteers and designated units to fight on German side. If not all at once, these units should be smeared out in the first year.
I also propose to incorporate the massive numbers of equipment (especially ARM and ART) captured by the Germans, although I do not know how to do this.
NORMANDIE-NIEMEN; important mostly for moral reasons (both for the Free French and the USSR), because it was small in size, it's importancy might be compared to that of the famous Flying Tigers in China. So, I suggest that, if France has any (Int) FTR's available at the time of the start of Germany's invasion, one is donated to the USSR, or at least the USSR receives 1 (int)FTR, for supplies.
INDIAN ARMY: Germany supported the creation of an Indian army in-exile. It was created, and it's members saw action in Western Europe in '44, but was neveer used for the purpose it was meant for, freeing India from British rule. Maybe a (chain-) event is possible in which Germany gradually tries to exert more influence over events on the subcontinent, maybe even gaining 1 INF, to be donated to India after it's independence and Germany still exists.
As far as I am concerned, everything is rubbish!! Simply too small, or too specific to be incorporated ingame.
The bottomline is clear; this game is not meant for widescale use of these kinds of trivialities, so I am very sceptical about these things. There are many, many other things that the vanilla game lacks, but should be ingame.
Have another post to write, so that's all for now!
Cheers,
King Konquer
Your comments were not only helpful, but actually underlined my own stance. I agree that the order of things should change, but that's also because I did not specify a certain order - this was just the basic idea, and for incorporation into the game first I need to do a little more historic research before I suppose a timeline and a series of events. After that, it's to the CORE-modders to incorporate these ingame, also taking into account gameplay etc.
About armies-in-exile:
IMHO, I still DO NOT SEE ANY REASON AT ALL for incorporating armies-in-exile into the game. I see a very big problem, both for historic and gameplay reasons.
Historic:
It might very well be true that there were HUGE armies-in-exile. I can very easily name specific units whose actions have proved to be vital for the war effort. Some of those units were massive in size, some of them very small, but simply performed brilliantly. To name a few:
-Polish army-in-exile in the UK: big in size, spread out through all military branches, performed superbly during the entire war, specifically mentioning the paratroopers, armored and infantry units and all airforce squadrons;
-Czechoslovakian units: also big in size, and just as important -the expertise of Czech flyers was vital in the aerial battles of the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain;
-Dutch submarines: simply created havoc in the waters of SE-Asia amongst Japanese naval units, and managed to tie down even more;
-French army-in-exile: this one was so big and important, I don't see the need for specifics,
-Merchant fleets of occupied countries: filling up the ranks for torpedoed British tonnage, simply critical.
There were many more, but here is not the place to honor them all -it's a gaming forum. However, against these armies-in-exile who fought on the Allied side, I must point out that literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers fought on the German(/ Italian) side; some of them were pressed into service or had simply no alternative except dying (POW's/ inhabitants from the USSR) to enthousiast anti-communist volunteers (SS-divisions from Holland, Belgium, France and Scandinavian countries) and fascists (Spain, Croatia), and some expected to have more to gain from the Axis than from the Allies (Indian army-in-exile in Germany).
Some of these troops were indeed used for nothing else than guard-duty at concentration camps, or had anti-partisan/"policing" duties. But other complete divisions were among the best motivated, well-trained and most loyal Waffen SS-divisions the Germans could count on, who fought on until their complete annihilation in the brutal Battle for Berlin.
Now, it must be relatively easy to create a Czech/ Polish/ French army-in-exile, since they can be "created" after surrendering or German annexation. But how to incorporate all of those thousands of volunteers fighting on the German side (20.000 men, or 2 full divisions, for the Waffen SS from Holland alone), let alone taking into account that many of those were crack units, and others not used in active combat at all, especially since the game does not incorporate the concentration camps, the brutal occupation, let alone the horrific crimes against humanity and genocides committed by German (forces). Basically, what I mean is this:
-Yes, it is true that there were thousands of soldiers from all kinds of occupied countries fighting for BOTH sides, for very different reasons,
-but it is very difficult to incorporate them ingame, especially since there is a huge difference amongst those units concerning their motivation, moral, loyalty, fighting spirit and of course their equipment,
-furthermore, for this to work properly concerning the Axis side, some sort of "genocide/mass-murder"-mechanism needs to be created, but not only is this VERY unwantable, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE,
-there are problems for the Allied side as well; after Poland has surrendered, and a Polish army-in-exile is created, will it be Polish, British or Polish-under-British-military-control? And will the Polish gov. then magically be recreated? If it is made British, how to adjust the org/moral levels which should be very different? If it is made Polish, how to incorporate the fact that these units were trained along British lines and equipped with British equipment?,
-Furthermore, I don't see for this to work properly: it is too much micro-management for too little fun and it opens a slippery slide to some historical facts that are and can be happily ignored by the game. And how does it work anyway? What are the factors determining the creation of such an army.
Example: Although Franco did not choose to side for Germany, he felt obliged to repay the help he had received from Berlin/Rome in the Spanish civil war (he also wanted to appease the hard-liners in his government). Therefore he allowed the creation of volunteer-units that were fighting on German side on the Eastern Front. Franco forced a concession from Hitler that these forces would only be used against the USSR. These units included several infantry divisions and an air force wing. So, this force was considerable in size. But would they still appear, if Nat. Spain had NOT won the civil war? Would pro-USSR volunteer units not be far more likely in that event? And how to incorporate that these units cannot be used anywhere else but the Eastern Front?
-other problems: I foresee supply-problems,
-alternative history: what is the trigger-mechanism that lets these armies be created, do these triggers adjust according to events and what if the game starts to differ from history?
Example: Historically, POL was attacked in '39 and the Polish-army-in-exile in the UK came into being in 1940, and was a significant force on it's own from '42 onwards. A huge factor in the shape and size of the army was the stance and attitude of the German occupier towards Polish society. What if GER attacks Poland in '36? Or, what if POL opts for an alliance with GER (I have seen it happen, playing a very aggressive USSR, having attacked and annexed Persia, Turkey, Afghanistan and a Rep. Spanish victory in '38), and Poland is not occupied at all? And if Germany would have behaved differently, would that have changed the number and quality of volunteers?
Example 2: What would happen if other-than-historical countries are attacked and/or annexed, or if the aggressor is different from their historical counterpart? Would a German occupation of Switzerland have led to an Anschluss 2 (creating a huge force for Germany) or to a massive flux of Swiss longing to fight their German counterparts (force for the allies)?
These are my biggest objections, and I do not think that, apart from certain specific events that were very important historically speaking, I can be easily persuaded. I am convinced that installing this mechanism can lead to many problems, for little or too few benefits, although the idea looks very attractive at first sight.
However, there are some historic events that were indeed very influential, and might deserve some attention, but should be incorporated ingame along with some other events. And I do want to contribute something, so here are my suggestions in case this mechanism is created somehow.
-polish surrender: after Poland has surrendered, it should just trigger a "polish unit mobilised!"-event, in which the UK receives a "free" INF/PAR/STR/TAC/FTR unit every year/according to historical timeline (just as GER receives 2 ARM-units after annexing CZE). After Poland is liberated (and the USSR agrees!!), these units should change ownership into Polish hands. But even then I am not in favor of this...
-Russian/ anti-bolshewist units: operation Barbarossa opened up an influx of anti-communist volunteers from all over (occupied) europe, wanting to fight alongside Germany. At the same time, the first half year of the invasion proved very succesful in capturing Soviet material, equipment and soldiers- and Germans were initially taken by surprise about how low Russian moral was. The usable equipment was quickly absorbed in the army, and was extremely important, for Russian equipment was much better suited for use on the harsh eastern front, and it was readily available, not having to be shipped towards the frontline along overstretched supplylines. This in turn opened up a possibility for creating an anti-communist army-in-exile. Actually created (to be led by Vlassov), it never materialized. But many (not a majority as far as I know of)historians agree that if Hitler would have played this card right, he would not have missed out in what could have been a HUGE contributor for drained german manpower.
I suggest that when Hitler orders the invasion of the USSR, automatically Germany receives the following units: 2 CAV (or 1 CAV, 1 L.ARM), 5 INF (or 3 INF, 1 MOT, 3 GAR), 5 MIL, 1 FTR, 1 CAS/ 1 TAC. These represent the influx of volunteers and designated units to fight on German side. If not all at once, these units should be smeared out in the first year.
I also propose to incorporate the massive numbers of equipment (especially ARM and ART) captured by the Germans, although I do not know how to do this.
NORMANDIE-NIEMEN; important mostly for moral reasons (both for the Free French and the USSR), because it was small in size, it's importancy might be compared to that of the famous Flying Tigers in China. So, I suggest that, if France has any (Int) FTR's available at the time of the start of Germany's invasion, one is donated to the USSR, or at least the USSR receives 1 (int)FTR, for supplies.
INDIAN ARMY: Germany supported the creation of an Indian army in-exile. It was created, and it's members saw action in Western Europe in '44, but was neveer used for the purpose it was meant for, freeing India from British rule. Maybe a (chain-) event is possible in which Germany gradually tries to exert more influence over events on the subcontinent, maybe even gaining 1 INF, to be donated to India after it's independence and Germany still exists.
As far as I am concerned, everything is rubbish!! Simply too small, or too specific to be incorporated ingame.
The bottomline is clear; this game is not meant for widescale use of these kinds of trivialities, so I am very sceptical about these things. There are many, many other things that the vanilla game lacks, but should be ingame.
Have another post to write, so that's all for now!
Cheers,
King Konquer
I guess before we discuss armies in exile further, you should go to this thread
http://www.21vikings.dk/viewtopic.php?t=446
It deals with the discussion and mechanics we were going to be using (specifically for Poland), for exiled forces. You can see that a lot of discussion was done on 'what if' situations, and we are open to interpretation.
Be assured, we aren't going to 'abuse' this, making it such a commonplace, but, it was significantly important to incorporate in the game, and incorporate it correctly. A lot of the problems you cited have already been addressed, or could easily be addressed, through discussion and insertion of a refined set of triggers.
We are going to exclude anything dealing with genocide, as that is our policy, but, that does not mean that the entire concept should be scrapped.
Armies in exile were designed to represent nations who are effectively annexed and eliminated from the game who offered contributions to other fighting nations throughout the rest of the war. We know that it will be tough to do right, but, we think it is possible, and would appreciate any help that you could give on the subject!
http://www.21vikings.dk/viewtopic.php?t=446
It deals with the discussion and mechanics we were going to be using (specifically for Poland), for exiled forces. You can see that a lot of discussion was done on 'what if' situations, and we are open to interpretation.
Be assured, we aren't going to 'abuse' this, making it such a commonplace, but, it was significantly important to incorporate in the game, and incorporate it correctly. A lot of the problems you cited have already been addressed, or could easily be addressed, through discussion and insertion of a refined set of triggers.
We are going to exclude anything dealing with genocide, as that is our policy, but, that does not mean that the entire concept should be scrapped.
Armies in exile were designed to represent nations who are effectively annexed and eliminated from the game who offered contributions to other fighting nations throughout the rest of the war. We know that it will be tough to do right, but, we think it is possible, and would appreciate any help that you could give on the subject!
Armies-in-exile II:
About armies-in-exile, and in fear of repeating myself, maybe more use can be made of adjusting org/moral-levels, nat. diss. and/or blueprints, instead of, or in combinations with creating “armies-in-exile”-events. I think this is more in line with history, and does more justice to the game-engine.
Especially the “Gearing up for war”-events, are something I have in mind for this.
Example:
FALL OF POLAND: If Poland falls, maybe a blueprint (remember, it was Polish intel. that hacked the Enigma-code machine!) for encr/decr.
FALL OF BENELUX/ FRANCE: After W-Europe falls, Germany should gain more blueprints (at least Basic STR from France, ans a SS and/or oil refinement-blueprint from HOL), and after this an event could be established in which volunteers try to reach the UK to fight for freedom, answering the call from Churchill and their governments-in-exile.
Maybe a “+x% org./ moral level”-event, to represent the fact that highly motivated people from all over Europe joined the experienced remnants of their defeated armies, to join the British in their desperate struggle for freedom. Another option (but less interesting) is simply to create a “+x manpower”-event.
OPERATION BARBAROSSA: after the German invasion, apart from the possibility I described in my last post, maybe another option is to create a “+x manpower”-event.
Of course, “penalties” can be created as well: The invasion of the USSR might very well result in a nat.diss.-modifier-event or something like that in case Moscow falls and Stalin dies…
Just another idea…
Have a nice weekend to all of you. I have some serious diplomacy to do; both my girlfriend and my mother are celbrating their birthday tomorrow… :wacko:
Lucky for me, they are getting along fine!
About armies-in-exile, and in fear of repeating myself, maybe more use can be made of adjusting org/moral-levels, nat. diss. and/or blueprints, instead of, or in combinations with creating “armies-in-exile”-events. I think this is more in line with history, and does more justice to the game-engine.
Especially the “Gearing up for war”-events, are something I have in mind for this.
Example:
FALL OF POLAND: If Poland falls, maybe a blueprint (remember, it was Polish intel. that hacked the Enigma-code machine!) for encr/decr.
FALL OF BENELUX/ FRANCE: After W-Europe falls, Germany should gain more blueprints (at least Basic STR from France, ans a SS and/or oil refinement-blueprint from HOL), and after this an event could be established in which volunteers try to reach the UK to fight for freedom, answering the call from Churchill and their governments-in-exile.
Maybe a “+x% org./ moral level”-event, to represent the fact that highly motivated people from all over Europe joined the experienced remnants of their defeated armies, to join the British in their desperate struggle for freedom. Another option (but less interesting) is simply to create a “+x manpower”-event.
OPERATION BARBAROSSA: after the German invasion, apart from the possibility I described in my last post, maybe another option is to create a “+x manpower”-event.
Of course, “penalties” can be created as well: The invasion of the USSR might very well result in a nat.diss.-modifier-event or something like that in case Moscow falls and Stalin dies…
Just another idea…
Have a nice weekend to all of you. I have some serious diplomacy to do; both my girlfriend and my mother are celbrating their birthday tomorrow… :wacko:
Lucky for me, they are getting along fine!
I´m wondering if you could make AOI a releasable puppet (consisting of Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia)?
Having survived last weekend, I can now again focus myattention on C.O.R.E.
McNaughton, sorry, I forgot to mention last time the thread you mentioned; I read it, and I am impressed. I still feel that armies-in-exile are a bit too much. However, I have always preferred rowing Upstream, so I like doing things the hard way: count me in for help on this issue!!
First, I like to know how I can of assistance- it seems you already have tons of help. And since I cannot (yet) help in the coding/modding/programming, I think I can only contribute historical data. That’s fine by me, but after having read your post, you already seem to have tons of data, and lots of access to more. As where I am concerned, I have just been cut off from many of my (literary) sources, having finished college, and having found a place to work far away from my former college… I still have access, but it takes more time.
Now, let’s get down to business. I have read Anraz/ Jraup’s discussion about the gov/army-in-exile. I am impressed by it, but (very politically correct) I reserve the right to uphold my reservations until further notice.
First, I do like to make a point specifically regarding the Polish army-in-exile: what do you propose to do in the following situations:
-Polish-German alliance: this tends to happen when the USSR behaves very aggresively before ’39. It seems very awkward to create a Polish army-in-exile in the UK, let alone the USSR, if this turns out into a war in which Poland sides with Germany. In the case of a war between the USSR (and the Allies) vs. Germany/Poland/others, and in case Poland is then overrun bu the USSR, shouldn’t a Polish army-in-exile then be created in Germany? Especially since Hitler’s initial plans regarding Poland where to incorporate it into a German-led alliance. His revenge when Poland did not budge, even proved to be a very determined resistor, is well known and doesn’t need to be discussed here.
In this discussion I do think that when creating a Polish army-in-exile, what do you propose concerning all of the other (occupied) nations? Let’s mention some other critical units:
-Norwegian merchant fleet (and in lesser amount that of Holland, Greece, France): absolutely critical for the British (and thus Allied) war effort, especially during the first Battle of the Atlantic. It was critical because it kept shipping capacity for Britain at a certain level, and so shipping remained constant, while British shipyards were constructing replacements for lost British merchant ships. Without the incorporation of other (occupied) nation’s merchant fleets, it is very likely that British production would have been (at least temporarily) compromised.
So, I suggest an event that allowes the UK to “seize” all remaining convoy transports of a country after a country is occupied by Germany/ Japan,Dutch subs: I’m very curious what you propose for this, because I also think the game already works fine concerning naval units. But I also think that this specific event is not represented the way it should have been,
-Czechs-in-exile: I also feel that the Czechs cannot be left out of the game; indeed, they were not allowed to form an army-in-exile the way the Polish were, but they did play a very important role, specifically during the Battles of France and Britain. I suggest that after the Munich agreement, France should have an event in 1939 like this: “Czech volunteers arrive in France!”, after which there are 2 possibilities (“No, we don’t need them”, no effect/ +1 nat.diss. OR “Yes, they will strengthen us greatly!”, +2 Manpower, +1% air units organization). Only if France chooses “Yes” will it be possible to open up the same event for the UK; this represents the fact that since the Allies to fight the war in France, it was logical to incorporate these men into the French army. Only after the fall of France did these volunteers then try to escape to Britain. And since Britain at that time was seriously short on manpower and trained personnel, it allowed these volunteers to form their own units under British command. So, only if France votes “yes”on the above mentioned event, does the UK get a “”Form Czech units in RAF?”-event immediately after the fall of France. The UK can then choose “Yes, the RAF desperately needs pilots!” (1 Int.F. immediately arrives for placement, +1 manpower) or “No, we cannot afford these reinforcements” (??? effects).
-what do you propose regarding Dutch, Belgian, Greek, Danish, Norwegian governments? They were all allowed to create and fund their own forces, albeit under British command and control. It is true that their impact on the war differs, but I do like to stress that this whole armies-in-exile-thing might become very problematic. Let me explain this by (again…) taking the Dutch as an example.
After the fall of Holland, the Dutch were slow and disorganized, and failed to sent many of their units to Britain. The situation was complicated by the fact that the Dutch government-in-exile, apart from queen Wilhelmina, was disheartened, yes even defaitist: consequently did the British not trust the Dutch volunteers, up to such an extent that Dutch miltary personnel was interned after arriving in Britain and only released after a detailed background-check and lengthy stay in confinement –this lead to many incidents between Dutch and British army personnel. Only after German occupation was there a significant rise in people trying to reach Britain, by whatever means possible. However, from this small number of military personnel readily available volunteer units were formed. This resulted in the creation of a total of 3 squadrons in the RAF ( sq. 320, 321 and 322). Their creation was slow, and up to 1944 were they seriously understrength and undermanned –during the entire war non-Dutch volunteers were needed to fill up the ranks. The above (the mistrust and the consequent slow buildup) also explains why non of these squadrons or Dutch military personnel were available for the Battle of Britain (I also must point out that in the end only sq. 322 transformed into a fighter unit, the other squadrons were bomber units). Neither of these units was transferred to the Dutch East Indies, although the Dutch also did not see the need for this. After the rapid conquest of Asia by the Japanese, a relatively larger number of personnel escaped to Ceylon or Australia. Very soon, 2 squadrons, sq 120 NEI and 121 NEI were formed under Australian command. These units fought during the entire war.
Furthermore, many Dutch pilots were not keen to operate in Dutch RAF squadrons: they preferred to be incorporated directly in British RAF/ Navy squadrons, or later on in USAAF/USN squadrons. They regarded this as a more effective way to kill Germans or Japanese.
Finally, a small Dutch army unit in the British Army was established (brigade-size).
However, the large number of Dutch merchant and navy vessels and personnel that operated under Allied control compensated completely for all of the above.
My question to you –having read the above- is this: how do you want to incorporate the above into CORE? Seems to me it must be pretty difficult. I also foresee another problem. Let’s take the Dutch as an example again. If you take the above mentioned 5 squadrons, that equals 1 aircraft unit. However, this must be split to a British and an Australian unit –how???. Since neither of these units had a significant impact on the war, you can choose not to incorporate them. This seems fair. But leaving the Polish (assuming they are indeed getting their own army-in-exile) and French (a separate problem, I will address later) aside, the Czechs, Danes, Norwegians, Greeks, Belgians and Dutch together were able to fund and equip more then 15 squadrons, the equivalent of 2-3 ingame aircraft units. How can you incorporate these into the game? Conveniently “ignoring” 15 squadrons of aircraft (do not forget the funding by the governments-in-exile and the manpower delivered by them, both of which were simply NOT possible for the UK to deliver) seems completely absurd to me. And than I do not even mention the ground units. And to me, putting all of these units together seems to be historically awkward (how to name them? They were all spread out through Britain over several Air Groups) and I foresee problems when their home countries are liberated one by one,
-Free French: immediately after the fall of France, the escaped French units organized themselves into the Free French Army. Their size alone was significant. But they really came into being after being retrained and re-equipped by the British. During the war, they even grew bigger and better considerably, especiall because of increasing war experience and when qualitatively better equipment became more available. Free French RAF units were amongst the best the RAF had, the Free French Army itself became a force to be reckoned with, although only used in large numbers after D-Day. Since the Free French Army was much bigger (and far more important for the war effort!!), they cannot be left out of the game. However, financially they were completely dependent on Britain (the Free French government was equipped by the UK and the USA on a Lend Lease-basis). I can think of many scenarios on how, when and where to create all kinds of units by all kinds of events, but I cannot think of any scenario that will work ingame. The problem can be summarized by this: after the fall of France, the Free French nation still exists (although in a more or less dormant state until Equatorial Africa changes sides) and it’s army was already established. The remaining French territories do not offer enough IC to fund the size of the Free French Army. Furthermore, the land units should be created in Britain and then locked, until a succesful Allied landing in occupied France has happened. Furthermore, Free French Air Force units were not independent, but –as all other air force units of occupied countries- were placed under British control and officially incorporated in the RAF. Please, I cannot crack this to work ingame. I very much look forward to your suggestions, but I am very sceptical on this. Oh, and then there is that other small event, that does deserves to be incorporated; the creation of the sq. Normandie-Niemen. Even if no units are created, it must be incorporated, since it had a huge impact on Russian morale, and caused some tension between Britain and the Free French gov (the UK was not so keen to see so many experienced air force personnel leave Britain).
All in all, although the game does not do history justice regarding govs/armies-in-exile, I think that their omission works out rather well.
I do dare to say that if you do not try to incorporate them all, than don’t do any of them –a game that incorporates the Polish army-in-exile, but lacks the British equipped (and partially British controlled) Free French Army simply is laughable and cannot be taken seriously. Same goes for all the other countries; I will not miss Norwegian, Dutch or any other units individually, but omitting all of them is not right if you do try to incorporate the Free French and/or Polish.
Finally, I have started my research into the size, equipment, manpower and date-of-birth of all foreign units under British/Commonwealth command of WW2, except for Polish and Free French units. I will post ASAP a list with these.
By the way, and as a final end of this post, I still have not had ANY comment on another point I made; how about foreign equipment and volunteers incorporated into the Wehrmacht? This involves a total of hundreds of thousands of soldiers! And the knowledge (“blueprints!!!”) captured in Holland, France and Belgium by the Germans? Not having said anything about this, I expect that you will incorporate this ingame as well? You cannot be serious to not do anything with this, can you? I have already posted the problems you can expect with this, but (sorry to say) this problem is not mine.
As I have said before, the game has not incorporated them, for good reasons. I do like to offer you my knowledge and/or existence, but I do expect something in return; that you will offer a full and complete package, that does justice to both sides! This should not be something just to make all Polish happy, nor should it start with “just” the Polish in v0.1 and and end with all armies-in-exile in v3.9 (or something like that). It should be all or nothing, and if it cannot be made to work properly and deals with all involved nations, it shouldn’t be incorporated until it does!
Of course, this is just my “humble” opinion. I am very anxious about any response (ie. is there anybody –anybody at all?- who dares to comment on my comments about pro-German units/reinforcements?). I need comment from somebody who thinks he has a way to make this work!
Regards,
King Konquer
McNaughton, sorry, I forgot to mention last time the thread you mentioned; I read it, and I am impressed. I still feel that armies-in-exile are a bit too much. However, I have always preferred rowing Upstream, so I like doing things the hard way: count me in for help on this issue!!
First, I like to know how I can of assistance- it seems you already have tons of help. And since I cannot (yet) help in the coding/modding/programming, I think I can only contribute historical data. That’s fine by me, but after having read your post, you already seem to have tons of data, and lots of access to more. As where I am concerned, I have just been cut off from many of my (literary) sources, having finished college, and having found a place to work far away from my former college… I still have access, but it takes more time.
Now, let’s get down to business. I have read Anraz/ Jraup’s discussion about the gov/army-in-exile. I am impressed by it, but (very politically correct) I reserve the right to uphold my reservations until further notice.
First, I do like to make a point specifically regarding the Polish army-in-exile: what do you propose to do in the following situations:
-Polish-German alliance: this tends to happen when the USSR behaves very aggresively before ’39. It seems very awkward to create a Polish army-in-exile in the UK, let alone the USSR, if this turns out into a war in which Poland sides with Germany. In the case of a war between the USSR (and the Allies) vs. Germany/Poland/others, and in case Poland is then overrun bu the USSR, shouldn’t a Polish army-in-exile then be created in Germany? Especially since Hitler’s initial plans regarding Poland where to incorporate it into a German-led alliance. His revenge when Poland did not budge, even proved to be a very determined resistor, is well known and doesn’t need to be discussed here.
In this discussion I do think that when creating a Polish army-in-exile, what do you propose concerning all of the other (occupied) nations? Let’s mention some other critical units:
-Norwegian merchant fleet (and in lesser amount that of Holland, Greece, France): absolutely critical for the British (and thus Allied) war effort, especially during the first Battle of the Atlantic. It was critical because it kept shipping capacity for Britain at a certain level, and so shipping remained constant, while British shipyards were constructing replacements for lost British merchant ships. Without the incorporation of other (occupied) nation’s merchant fleets, it is very likely that British production would have been (at least temporarily) compromised.
So, I suggest an event that allowes the UK to “seize” all remaining convoy transports of a country after a country is occupied by Germany/ Japan,Dutch subs: I’m very curious what you propose for this, because I also think the game already works fine concerning naval units. But I also think that this specific event is not represented the way it should have been,
-Czechs-in-exile: I also feel that the Czechs cannot be left out of the game; indeed, they were not allowed to form an army-in-exile the way the Polish were, but they did play a very important role, specifically during the Battles of France and Britain. I suggest that after the Munich agreement, France should have an event in 1939 like this: “Czech volunteers arrive in France!”, after which there are 2 possibilities (“No, we don’t need them”, no effect/ +1 nat.diss. OR “Yes, they will strengthen us greatly!”, +2 Manpower, +1% air units organization). Only if France chooses “Yes” will it be possible to open up the same event for the UK; this represents the fact that since the Allies to fight the war in France, it was logical to incorporate these men into the French army. Only after the fall of France did these volunteers then try to escape to Britain. And since Britain at that time was seriously short on manpower and trained personnel, it allowed these volunteers to form their own units under British command. So, only if France votes “yes”on the above mentioned event, does the UK get a “”Form Czech units in RAF?”-event immediately after the fall of France. The UK can then choose “Yes, the RAF desperately needs pilots!” (1 Int.F. immediately arrives for placement, +1 manpower) or “No, we cannot afford these reinforcements” (??? effects).
-what do you propose regarding Dutch, Belgian, Greek, Danish, Norwegian governments? They were all allowed to create and fund their own forces, albeit under British command and control. It is true that their impact on the war differs, but I do like to stress that this whole armies-in-exile-thing might become very problematic. Let me explain this by (again…) taking the Dutch as an example.
After the fall of Holland, the Dutch were slow and disorganized, and failed to sent many of their units to Britain. The situation was complicated by the fact that the Dutch government-in-exile, apart from queen Wilhelmina, was disheartened, yes even defaitist: consequently did the British not trust the Dutch volunteers, up to such an extent that Dutch miltary personnel was interned after arriving in Britain and only released after a detailed background-check and lengthy stay in confinement –this lead to many incidents between Dutch and British army personnel. Only after German occupation was there a significant rise in people trying to reach Britain, by whatever means possible. However, from this small number of military personnel readily available volunteer units were formed. This resulted in the creation of a total of 3 squadrons in the RAF ( sq. 320, 321 and 322). Their creation was slow, and up to 1944 were they seriously understrength and undermanned –during the entire war non-Dutch volunteers were needed to fill up the ranks. The above (the mistrust and the consequent slow buildup) also explains why non of these squadrons or Dutch military personnel were available for the Battle of Britain (I also must point out that in the end only sq. 322 transformed into a fighter unit, the other squadrons were bomber units). Neither of these units was transferred to the Dutch East Indies, although the Dutch also did not see the need for this. After the rapid conquest of Asia by the Japanese, a relatively larger number of personnel escaped to Ceylon or Australia. Very soon, 2 squadrons, sq 120 NEI and 121 NEI were formed under Australian command. These units fought during the entire war.
Furthermore, many Dutch pilots were not keen to operate in Dutch RAF squadrons: they preferred to be incorporated directly in British RAF/ Navy squadrons, or later on in USAAF/USN squadrons. They regarded this as a more effective way to kill Germans or Japanese.
Finally, a small Dutch army unit in the British Army was established (brigade-size).
However, the large number of Dutch merchant and navy vessels and personnel that operated under Allied control compensated completely for all of the above.
My question to you –having read the above- is this: how do you want to incorporate the above into CORE? Seems to me it must be pretty difficult. I also foresee another problem. Let’s take the Dutch as an example again. If you take the above mentioned 5 squadrons, that equals 1 aircraft unit. However, this must be split to a British and an Australian unit –how???. Since neither of these units had a significant impact on the war, you can choose not to incorporate them. This seems fair. But leaving the Polish (assuming they are indeed getting their own army-in-exile) and French (a separate problem, I will address later) aside, the Czechs, Danes, Norwegians, Greeks, Belgians and Dutch together were able to fund and equip more then 15 squadrons, the equivalent of 2-3 ingame aircraft units. How can you incorporate these into the game? Conveniently “ignoring” 15 squadrons of aircraft (do not forget the funding by the governments-in-exile and the manpower delivered by them, both of which were simply NOT possible for the UK to deliver) seems completely absurd to me. And than I do not even mention the ground units. And to me, putting all of these units together seems to be historically awkward (how to name them? They were all spread out through Britain over several Air Groups) and I foresee problems when their home countries are liberated one by one,
-Free French: immediately after the fall of France, the escaped French units organized themselves into the Free French Army. Their size alone was significant. But they really came into being after being retrained and re-equipped by the British. During the war, they even grew bigger and better considerably, especiall because of increasing war experience and when qualitatively better equipment became more available. Free French RAF units were amongst the best the RAF had, the Free French Army itself became a force to be reckoned with, although only used in large numbers after D-Day. Since the Free French Army was much bigger (and far more important for the war effort!!), they cannot be left out of the game. However, financially they were completely dependent on Britain (the Free French government was equipped by the UK and the USA on a Lend Lease-basis). I can think of many scenarios on how, when and where to create all kinds of units by all kinds of events, but I cannot think of any scenario that will work ingame. The problem can be summarized by this: after the fall of France, the Free French nation still exists (although in a more or less dormant state until Equatorial Africa changes sides) and it’s army was already established. The remaining French territories do not offer enough IC to fund the size of the Free French Army. Furthermore, the land units should be created in Britain and then locked, until a succesful Allied landing in occupied France has happened. Furthermore, Free French Air Force units were not independent, but –as all other air force units of occupied countries- were placed under British control and officially incorporated in the RAF. Please, I cannot crack this to work ingame. I very much look forward to your suggestions, but I am very sceptical on this. Oh, and then there is that other small event, that does deserves to be incorporated; the creation of the sq. Normandie-Niemen. Even if no units are created, it must be incorporated, since it had a huge impact on Russian morale, and caused some tension between Britain and the Free French gov (the UK was not so keen to see so many experienced air force personnel leave Britain).
All in all, although the game does not do history justice regarding govs/armies-in-exile, I think that their omission works out rather well.
I do dare to say that if you do not try to incorporate them all, than don’t do any of them –a game that incorporates the Polish army-in-exile, but lacks the British equipped (and partially British controlled) Free French Army simply is laughable and cannot be taken seriously. Same goes for all the other countries; I will not miss Norwegian, Dutch or any other units individually, but omitting all of them is not right if you do try to incorporate the Free French and/or Polish.
Finally, I have started my research into the size, equipment, manpower and date-of-birth of all foreign units under British/Commonwealth command of WW2, except for Polish and Free French units. I will post ASAP a list with these.
By the way, and as a final end of this post, I still have not had ANY comment on another point I made; how about foreign equipment and volunteers incorporated into the Wehrmacht? This involves a total of hundreds of thousands of soldiers! And the knowledge (“blueprints!!!”) captured in Holland, France and Belgium by the Germans? Not having said anything about this, I expect that you will incorporate this ingame as well? You cannot be serious to not do anything with this, can you? I have already posted the problems you can expect with this, but (sorry to say) this problem is not mine.
As I have said before, the game has not incorporated them, for good reasons. I do like to offer you my knowledge and/or existence, but I do expect something in return; that you will offer a full and complete package, that does justice to both sides! This should not be something just to make all Polish happy, nor should it start with “just” the Polish in v0.1 and and end with all armies-in-exile in v3.9 (or something like that). It should be all or nothing, and if it cannot be made to work properly and deals with all involved nations, it shouldn’t be incorporated until it does!
Of course, this is just my “humble” opinion. I am very anxious about any response (ie. is there anybody –anybody at all?- who dares to comment on my comments about pro-German units/reinforcements?). I need comment from somebody who thinks he has a way to make this work!
Regards,
King Konquer
Since I have a little more timeleft today, I wish to open up a discussion on another possible enlargement of an Axis (German-led) alliance, this time in Latin-America.
I think that CORE should be provided with several chain-linked events, that make it possible for Germany to enlarge it’s influence into an area it never got to: Latin-America. During the 20s and 30s, Germany and Italy impressed many in Latin-America. Acknowledging this, Mussolini tried to influence these countries as much as possible. Also, after the war many Germans suspected of war-crimes (especially SS-men), as well as many scientists, fled to Latin-America, especially Chile, Argentina and Brazil, which were all keen to incorporate their knowledge and wealth.
However, during the war no country openly sided with the Axis. Actually, several countries choose to fight on the Allied side, wanting to benefit from all kinds of Allied created programs deigned to benefit their allies. I have asked my girlfriend, a specialist on Latin-America, to find out more on the specifics of Latin-American politics during the war. So no info on the exact political situatiions and mechanisms of these countries during the war, but I dare to say the following:
-there was broad support for the European facsist countries, particularly in Argentina, Chile and Brazil and Uruguay,
-the Battle of the Rio Plate caused considerable embarassment for both sides: open British pressure on Uruguay and Argentina not to allow the KM Graf Spee being refitted and supplied in their ports, caused a lot of goodwill in Latin-America, especially Argentina and Uruguay,
-although Brazil sided with the Allies in ’44, this only happened after having negotiated a deal in which was given huge amounts of assistance (military, economically, financially, politically, etc.) by the US. It was already clear to all then that Germany was on the losing side, but still it had many supporters, also in Brazil,
-in Chile the situation was less clear and more fuzzy; it was economically far more and more directly dependent on it’s ties with the USA- it’s foreign policy was firmly based on not to burden their relationship, even while there was much support for the Axis before and during the war,
-Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Chile all inhabited many immigrants from Germany and even many more from Italy,
-even before the war the question of the Falklands (or Malvinas) was a hot iron in British-Argentinian relations,
-Venezolan oil, combined with refineries on Dutch-owned Aruba and Curacao, was vital for the Allied war effort.
Of course, there must be much more data concening these countries during the war, that makes for interesting events. I will try to get into details ASAP. But I’m aiming on a series of events that starts with the Battle of Rio Grande, heavily influencing politics in L-America and the relations of them with the Axis and Britain. Also, I think Italy must be able to enlarge its influence by the PR-stunts (like the Flying Armada to Brazil) they pulled up until the mid-thirties, but then stopped (does anybody know why?). After the Battle of the Rio Grande, for Argentina (and Uruguay???) a series of events should start that ends with a possible siding with Germany, after a deal has been struck in which Germany promises supplies/technological assistance and volunteers and resources, for support with the conquest of the Malvinas, the allowance of German planes and ships on Argentinian soil and ???
Then, if the conquest of the Malvinas proves to be succesful, other countries (Chile, Brazil?) should be encouraged to follow suit. Of course, the Allies should be able to counter these Axis diplomatic initiatives, although I have no clue yet how to do this. I do know that the USA would not tolerate such activity in “their backyard”, so belligerence with Germany should rocket sky high, if not automatically lead to a DoW anyway (this would also be dependent on how much the Allies are meddling in this “backyard”- the more they are meddling, the lower the chance that the USA chooses their side).
I also will have to do a lot of research on the smaller countries on the American continent and in the Caribbean on their possible stance. And I need to check whether there are countries who would prefer to choose Italy over Germany (I think Paraguay and Uruguay are candidates). There should also be an inclusion in which the German allies on the American continent make a deal with the Allies/(partial) surrender aftert a succesful D-day, or else after Germany/Italy have lost the war. Finally, in such a scenario, there should be a “Establish the Fourth Reich! We will never surrender!”-event, in which Uruguay, Argentina (and Chile?) create another war-bound facsist state, helped by the escaped remnants of the defeated Germany (blueprints, manpower, ships, aircraft, money, units???).
As said, need to do a lot of research, but this should be very much a possibility.
I think that CORE should be provided with several chain-linked events, that make it possible for Germany to enlarge it’s influence into an area it never got to: Latin-America. During the 20s and 30s, Germany and Italy impressed many in Latin-America. Acknowledging this, Mussolini tried to influence these countries as much as possible. Also, after the war many Germans suspected of war-crimes (especially SS-men), as well as many scientists, fled to Latin-America, especially Chile, Argentina and Brazil, which were all keen to incorporate their knowledge and wealth.
However, during the war no country openly sided with the Axis. Actually, several countries choose to fight on the Allied side, wanting to benefit from all kinds of Allied created programs deigned to benefit their allies. I have asked my girlfriend, a specialist on Latin-America, to find out more on the specifics of Latin-American politics during the war. So no info on the exact political situatiions and mechanisms of these countries during the war, but I dare to say the following:
-there was broad support for the European facsist countries, particularly in Argentina, Chile and Brazil and Uruguay,
-the Battle of the Rio Plate caused considerable embarassment for both sides: open British pressure on Uruguay and Argentina not to allow the KM Graf Spee being refitted and supplied in their ports, caused a lot of goodwill in Latin-America, especially Argentina and Uruguay,
-although Brazil sided with the Allies in ’44, this only happened after having negotiated a deal in which was given huge amounts of assistance (military, economically, financially, politically, etc.) by the US. It was already clear to all then that Germany was on the losing side, but still it had many supporters, also in Brazil,
-in Chile the situation was less clear and more fuzzy; it was economically far more and more directly dependent on it’s ties with the USA- it’s foreign policy was firmly based on not to burden their relationship, even while there was much support for the Axis before and during the war,
-Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Chile all inhabited many immigrants from Germany and even many more from Italy,
-even before the war the question of the Falklands (or Malvinas) was a hot iron in British-Argentinian relations,
-Venezolan oil, combined with refineries on Dutch-owned Aruba and Curacao, was vital for the Allied war effort.
Of course, there must be much more data concening these countries during the war, that makes for interesting events. I will try to get into details ASAP. But I’m aiming on a series of events that starts with the Battle of Rio Grande, heavily influencing politics in L-America and the relations of them with the Axis and Britain. Also, I think Italy must be able to enlarge its influence by the PR-stunts (like the Flying Armada to Brazil) they pulled up until the mid-thirties, but then stopped (does anybody know why?). After the Battle of the Rio Grande, for Argentina (and Uruguay???) a series of events should start that ends with a possible siding with Germany, after a deal has been struck in which Germany promises supplies/technological assistance and volunteers and resources, for support with the conquest of the Malvinas, the allowance of German planes and ships on Argentinian soil and ???
Then, if the conquest of the Malvinas proves to be succesful, other countries (Chile, Brazil?) should be encouraged to follow suit. Of course, the Allies should be able to counter these Axis diplomatic initiatives, although I have no clue yet how to do this. I do know that the USA would not tolerate such activity in “their backyard”, so belligerence with Germany should rocket sky high, if not automatically lead to a DoW anyway (this would also be dependent on how much the Allies are meddling in this “backyard”- the more they are meddling, the lower the chance that the USA chooses their side).
I also will have to do a lot of research on the smaller countries on the American continent and in the Caribbean on their possible stance. And I need to check whether there are countries who would prefer to choose Italy over Germany (I think Paraguay and Uruguay are candidates). There should also be an inclusion in which the German allies on the American continent make a deal with the Allies/(partial) surrender aftert a succesful D-day, or else after Germany/Italy have lost the war. Finally, in such a scenario, there should be a “Establish the Fourth Reich! We will never surrender!”-event, in which Uruguay, Argentina (and Chile?) create another war-bound facsist state, helped by the escaped remnants of the defeated Germany (blueprints, manpower, ships, aircraft, money, units???).
As said, need to do a lot of research, but this should be very much a possibility.
To McNaughton:
So sorry, but I now see that an earlier post of mine, answering your comments, never made it to the forum. So, this one is for you! ;-)
Spanish Civil War/ Nat. Sp. entrance into the war:
As a matter of fact, you are exactly right!! When Hitler negotiated with Franco about its entrance into WW2, Franco’s demands were extreme. So extreme that the Fuhrer finally gave up, spitting in anger as the story goes… Historians are still arguing over the reasons for Franco’s high demands; did he not believe in a final German victory (and thus managed to “save” Spain from another devastating war) or did he actually want to enter, but could only afford to do so on his terms, because he was ruling a ruined and devastated country (and so actually wanted to make Spain’s entrance in the war to work, but failed to do so). So I find your proposal not only interesting, but support it wholeheartedly!
Tibetan politics:
I agree that Tibet was a country that tried to shield itself from the outsied world. Nevertheless, the Chinese revolution of 1912, in which the emperor stepped down, was very much a wake up-call for Tibetan political society (however small, backward, ill-informed and xenophobic it might have been), for as long as China was an empire, the emperor was the protector of Tibetan sovereignty. This deal was established hundreds of years before, and basically was the only real diplomatic relationship the Tibetans had. Although envoys were sent to the Kuomintang, Chang Kai Chek openly stated his intention to incorporated Tibet into his vision of a Greater China. History made his opponent Mao to do just that. Also, before the war, during it and until its annexation in 1949, there were no diplomatic relations between Tibet and the rest of the world, not even the major powers; Tibet conveniently but naively closed itself from the outside world, and the major powers did not want to recognize it formally, hoping to put pressure on a later date (especially the Nat. Chinese, the USSR, the UK) or feared protests from Nat. Ch. (the USA). After the war, Tibet finally saw what was probably coming, but an effort by the Dalai Lama to seek international recognition failed completely (all powers foresaw that Tibet would be swallowed up by China –whether it was nationalist or communist) and in 1949 it was all over…
We must realise that pre-war Tibet is extremely thin populated, hence its political society, its government and the rulers even put together involve a very small number of people. Since it was also a theocracy, ruled by the Dalaï Lama, and thus actually a one man-state, the key for gaining influence lies with being accepted by a very small number of people. And while they might nbe xenophobic, for Tibetans the Germans must have appeared to be preferred above the Russians, the Chinese and the British, all of whom have tried harshly to exert their grasp over Tibet, but failed. The fact that they both adored the swastika, and the open anti-Russian and anti-British stance of the Germans must have been a welcome change for Tibet’s rulers. The nature of the German expedition must have been positive as well –the Germans were looking for their Aryan ancestor, and believed the Tibetans were the nearest thing to it, albeit a degenerated race, which of course they never mentioned to their hosts).
Knowing that the then ruling Dalaï Lama did see the need for change, but wasn’t sure how to accomplish it yet, I do see Tibet as a possible extension of “Germany’s Wild Asian Adventure”. Staging a coup, bribing people or a more high-profile expedition are all possibilities to gain more influence.
But the best signs of the impact of the German expedition to Tibet, can be found in the British attempts to block it, and when that proved to have failed, the alarmbells that rang in British Intelligence HQ’s after finding out the Germans did arrive and the other sign is the fact that the German expedition was received by a party chaired by the Dalaï Lama himself, and that he personally gave a letter addressed to Hitler in which he welcomed German intentions and hoped for a good beneficial relationship between their countries. As far as I know, this letter is unique from a Tibetan perspective.
All in all, I see enough ground to make Tibet part of the “Asian Game”- and it might very well start in Iraq. I do want to mention that CORE might then influence history a little different. Historically, the uprising that alsomst led to Iraq changing sides, only happened in 1941. But uprisings in Iraq actually were very common. I suggest that CORE takes another pre-war Iraqi uprising as a starting point for all these events, and that thios series of events should end with the above mentioned uprising in 1941, in which Iraq can finally change sides. So it should start and end in Iraq. Let me know what you think of this.
Yours truly,
KingKonquer
So sorry, but I now see that an earlier post of mine, answering your comments, never made it to the forum. So, this one is for you! ;-)
Spanish Civil War/ Nat. Sp. entrance into the war:
As a matter of fact, you are exactly right!! When Hitler negotiated with Franco about its entrance into WW2, Franco’s demands were extreme. So extreme that the Fuhrer finally gave up, spitting in anger as the story goes… Historians are still arguing over the reasons for Franco’s high demands; did he not believe in a final German victory (and thus managed to “save” Spain from another devastating war) or did he actually want to enter, but could only afford to do so on his terms, because he was ruling a ruined and devastated country (and so actually wanted to make Spain’s entrance in the war to work, but failed to do so). So I find your proposal not only interesting, but support it wholeheartedly!
Tibetan politics:
I agree that Tibet was a country that tried to shield itself from the outsied world. Nevertheless, the Chinese revolution of 1912, in which the emperor stepped down, was very much a wake up-call for Tibetan political society (however small, backward, ill-informed and xenophobic it might have been), for as long as China was an empire, the emperor was the protector of Tibetan sovereignty. This deal was established hundreds of years before, and basically was the only real diplomatic relationship the Tibetans had. Although envoys were sent to the Kuomintang, Chang Kai Chek openly stated his intention to incorporated Tibet into his vision of a Greater China. History made his opponent Mao to do just that. Also, before the war, during it and until its annexation in 1949, there were no diplomatic relations between Tibet and the rest of the world, not even the major powers; Tibet conveniently but naively closed itself from the outside world, and the major powers did not want to recognize it formally, hoping to put pressure on a later date (especially the Nat. Chinese, the USSR, the UK) or feared protests from Nat. Ch. (the USA). After the war, Tibet finally saw what was probably coming, but an effort by the Dalai Lama to seek international recognition failed completely (all powers foresaw that Tibet would be swallowed up by China –whether it was nationalist or communist) and in 1949 it was all over…
We must realise that pre-war Tibet is extremely thin populated, hence its political society, its government and the rulers even put together involve a very small number of people. Since it was also a theocracy, ruled by the Dalaï Lama, and thus actually a one man-state, the key for gaining influence lies with being accepted by a very small number of people. And while they might nbe xenophobic, for Tibetans the Germans must have appeared to be preferred above the Russians, the Chinese and the British, all of whom have tried harshly to exert their grasp over Tibet, but failed. The fact that they both adored the swastika, and the open anti-Russian and anti-British stance of the Germans must have been a welcome change for Tibet’s rulers. The nature of the German expedition must have been positive as well –the Germans were looking for their Aryan ancestor, and believed the Tibetans were the nearest thing to it, albeit a degenerated race, which of course they never mentioned to their hosts).
Knowing that the then ruling Dalaï Lama did see the need for change, but wasn’t sure how to accomplish it yet, I do see Tibet as a possible extension of “Germany’s Wild Asian Adventure”. Staging a coup, bribing people or a more high-profile expedition are all possibilities to gain more influence.
But the best signs of the impact of the German expedition to Tibet, can be found in the British attempts to block it, and when that proved to have failed, the alarmbells that rang in British Intelligence HQ’s after finding out the Germans did arrive and the other sign is the fact that the German expedition was received by a party chaired by the Dalaï Lama himself, and that he personally gave a letter addressed to Hitler in which he welcomed German intentions and hoped for a good beneficial relationship between their countries. As far as I know, this letter is unique from a Tibetan perspective.
All in all, I see enough ground to make Tibet part of the “Asian Game”- and it might very well start in Iraq. I do want to mention that CORE might then influence history a little different. Historically, the uprising that alsomst led to Iraq changing sides, only happened in 1941. But uprisings in Iraq actually were very common. I suggest that CORE takes another pre-war Iraqi uprising as a starting point for all these events, and that thios series of events should end with the above mentioned uprising in 1941, in which Iraq can finally change sides. So it should start and end in Iraq. Let me know what you think of this.
Yours truly,
KingKonquer
Very nice post, KingKonquer I have also done a little reseach into latin america,nad my finding are in line with yours a long event chain trying to convised latin america counrties to enter on the side of the axis,offering should start low with a low chance to get them to join,with rising offers for the axis the chance of latin should increase but not enough to make it very likly just possible,triggers for would have to include a increased chance of german victory(who wants to jion a losing cause)argentina would be the most likey,this struggle for power in latin america would also be a major player if they choise to apply enough presser the chance of latin america join would be historical,with many counrty joining the allies...just my two cents
Naval Bombers
Regarding the problem of Naval Bombers being overly powerful would either of these two ideas work?
1) Splitting the series into two parts as you have for many other things, one series representing the patrol planes types such as the PBY Catalina (which would have great range and spotting abilities) and the other representing planes such as the Betty Bomber with significant attack values but lesser range.
2) Have all Naval Bombers generic to begin with but then have a doctrine choice to go either search or attack routes.
Regarding the problem of Naval Bombers being overly powerful would either of these two ideas work?
1) Splitting the series into two parts as you have for many other things, one series representing the patrol planes types such as the PBY Catalina (which would have great range and spotting abilities) and the other representing planes such as the Betty Bomber with significant attack values but lesser range.
2) Have all Naval Bombers generic to begin with but then have a doctrine choice to go either search or attack routes.
I've always wanted to redo the Naval bomber into a Naval Patrol Plane, but there are a number of problems with this. The first being how the patrol mission should work. There isn't a pausible message (as far as I know) for when aircraft detect ships, which would be a requirement for it to be useful. The second part is that we cannot do anything about is adding attack values through doctrines, which would force us to use multiple models of the same type to represent these and with only ten available they'll be in short demand to span the entire war sufficiently (as both bombers and recon planes).GovernmentIssue said:
I have spent many hours with this and haven't found a good (uncontrived) way of handling them. The best result so far has been to do, as we have, to bring Naval bombers down to 1/4th strength (in regards to cost, values and such) to better represent how they operated and how well they operated. Steel did a bunch of testing of this, I know, when he was around. I haven't seen a good solution on changing this, but if you're willing to give it a shot then I'm certainly listening!
baylox said:I've always wanted to redo the Naval bomber into a Naval Patrol Plane, but there are a number of problems with this. The first being how the patrol mission should work. There isn't a pausible message (as far as I know) for when aircraft detect ships, which would be a requirement for it to be useful. The second part is that we cannot do anything about is adding attack values through doctrines, which would force us to use multiple models of the same type to represent these and with only ten available they'll be in short demand to span the entire war sufficiently (as both bombers and recon planes).
I have spent many hours with this and haven't found a good (uncontrived) way of handling them. The best result so far has been to do, as we have, to bring Naval bombers down to 1/4th strength (in regards to cost, values and such) to better represent how they operated and how well they operated. Steel did a bunch of testing of this, I know, when he was around. I haven't seen a good solution on changing this, but if you're willing to give it a shot then I'm certainly listening!
For spotting couldnt the patrol class of plane have abysmal naval attack but great defense so that you just put them on Naval Strike missions and get the combat reports?
I guess, but that would still mean that they could be used for some attack and be almost impossible to destroy. Plus it wouldn't be a pretty solution.
Still, that's the only way it could be done, I guess.
EDIT: Unfortunately the units can't have 0 Naval attack, because 0 values disable the mission related to it.
Still, that's the only way it could be done, I guess.
EDIT: Unfortunately the units can't have 0 Naval attack, because 0 values disable the mission related to it.
To Baylox & GovernmentIssue:
I totally agree with your comments on overpowered NAVs, but while AFAIK there is no solution yet, this problem has been recognized and I know several people are working on a solution (Steel???), although so far without results. Kinda funny; just build 10 NAVs and you can wreck eeven the biggest of fleets within a year... But then again, compared to HoI1, the entire air campaign works much, much better. I guess something had to be left to be desired for HoI3!
Very curious how this can be corrected, espcially since my skills stop at the screen -all I can do is look at it, throw myself to the ground and humbly wait for a Higher Authority to zap my game and correct it
Will post later today, since there are some ideas bubbling in my head regarding several Minors and the USSR.
Greetz!
I totally agree with your comments on overpowered NAVs, but while AFAIK there is no solution yet, this problem has been recognized and I know several people are working on a solution (Steel???), although so far without results. Kinda funny; just build 10 NAVs and you can wreck eeven the biggest of fleets within a year... But then again, compared to HoI1, the entire air campaign works much, much better. I guess something had to be left to be desired for HoI3!
Very curious how this can be corrected, espcially since my skills stop at the screen -all I can do is look at it, throw myself to the ground and humbly wait for a Higher Authority to zap my game and correct it
Will post later today, since there are some ideas bubbling in my head regarding several Minors and the USSR.
Greetz!
CORE is using Steel's early modification to naval bombers.
And regarding why you should build them rather than tactical bombers - I've already mentioned cost, but there are two more factors: Supply and Fuel consumption are much lower (since their airgroups are 25 planes, or so, each, rather than 100) and Range is much longer.
On the other hand, they may need to be scaled down a bit more (naval attack-wise), but I haven't run any tests in a long time to make up my mind about it. Input appreciated.
And regarding why you should build them rather than tactical bombers - I've already mentioned cost, but there are two more factors: Supply and Fuel consumption are much lower (since their airgroups are 25 planes, or so, each, rather than 100) and Range is much longer.
On the other hand, they may need to be scaled down a bit more (naval attack-wise), but I haven't run any tests in a long time to make up my mind about it. Input appreciated.
Just a wild thought... What would happen with a decimal attack factor (0.5, 0.1 whatever) for the patrol type naval bombers? Any chance it would activate the mission type and still create little chance of ship damage?
P.S. Does war EVER have pretty solutions?
P.S. Does war EVER have pretty solutions?