WW2 Oil and Snow (1st ed.) NEW MAP RELEASE

ebbe

so it IS POSSIBLE to conquer STALINGRAD after all!

Stal copy.png

ebbe

Focussing on **PRO ACTIVE NEUTRAL MINORS now

or at least: let them have a role in choosing sides or remaining neutral.
Like Turkey, with very interesting geographical position; when it chooses sides the black sea fleet may enter the mediterranean and opposite.

I will give the Turkish neutral start, but if attacked they join the opposing Alliance directly. Also there will be the possibility that they join either side by Chance Roll, with a more bigger Swap sides rate to the more victorious Alliance over time. Would be interesting for more "bigger"neutrals like Spain...Portugal.. Sweden, Argentina.. but then all with their own background and trigger-issues.... what you think?

@Schulz : Setup Turkey ok? I saw you have some knowledge on this topic in the forum.. they get some Flotilla to once involved and joing a side.. and east turkey Hills or Mountains as terrain?

Schulz

@ebbe Considering realism, Western Turkey should be more valuable than Eastern Turkey.

Both Western and Eastern Turkey are mountainous regions.

In the spring 1941 Turkey was politially slighly pro-allies considered a German invasion on Turkey highly possible and located most of troops in the Western Turkey defensively. After the Germans occupied Greece and signed non-Aggression pact with Turkey, the political position shifted to total neutrality.

Turkey had armament agreements with UK which wanted to bring it the war on Allies side, but Turkey stated its army is not ready to even resist a possible German invasion.

Turkey was also major chromite supplyer of Germany between 1941-1944. There was absolutely zero chance Turkey joining Allies without being attacked by Axis first in this timeline.

Some Turanists groups wanted to join the war on Axis side but they mostly just wanted to fight with the Soviets not with the Western Allies, the situation could be similar to Finland. I think there was a change they could succeeded had the Germans won in N.Africa and Stalingrad.

I think Turkey could join the war on Axis side in 1941-1942 with a government chance. It could definitely led a German victory on the Cauasus and anti-Soviet insurgencies among Azerbaijani Turks which could further weakened the Soviet position on the Caucasus which would cause total collapse of Persian corridor.

ebbe

@schulz Okej thanks... on Turkey: so mountainous both... west/east PU : 2/1 I think Fortifications in the west , maybe outdated but numerous enough to be displayed.... no armour? light Fighter and light art. should do it and some serious manpower? and more troop west then east... clear..... I give them a slight more Axis "swap" chance in 41/42 and if allies gain global ground more allies focus, if joining after all.. I make it a 20% chance without being attacked.... and join opposite Alliances if attacked by one of the Alliances overall... ok
I think the Dardanelles canal-Black sea-mediterrean connection is an interesting twist in strategy when occuring....or by remaining a possibility during gameplay.....

And for Portugal I propose starting with like a true neutral , slightly more swap chance towards Allies... after 1942 and a Azores use of airbase Nr.4 (October 1943,) so Azore switch to cooperative Neutral_Allies then & add free airbase unit.

Schulz

@ebbe Both Eastern Turkey is even more mountainous with higher altitude. But seems like altitude is not represented it is appropriate to make both mountainous.

Yes 2/1 PUs is more realistic. There was a defensive line called "Cakmak Line" to slow down a possible German advance if they had attacked Turkey via Bulgarian border but it became totally obsolete when the Germans occupied Greece since the line wasn't covering Turkish-Greek border. After that the bulk of troops moved to doorsteps of Istanbul from Cakmak Line.

Turkey had small amount of tanks and fighters but overall the army was in poor shape and there was a defict of war materials however it had still decent manpower pool, a small industrial power plus veteran commanders of WWI and Turkish War of Indepence.

I think Turkey overall was just slighly stronger than Romania in WWII.

The European part of Turkey so small to represent but making it its own territory with Dardanelle could make the situation more interesting.

Portugal had always good relations with the UK. It might be set up as slighly pro-Allies.

ebbe

@schulz

Okej: Turkey adapted: starts neutral, but there is allways the chance they will join Allies or Axis throughout the game
(by a few chance rolls & bigger chance if this Alliance is performing well in conquering Victory cities )
and by this opening the Dardanelles for the Navy from and towards Black Sea... which I think is strategically interesting

Once part of the war, units will switch to active, coloured units and will be commanded by British or Germans depending on Alliance-choice.
If joining Allies the relation with USSR remains Neutral due to old tensions .

Example: Turkish troops are activated after Turkey joining the Axis...
and receive GArrison Reinforcements.
Suddenly the Italian Navy appears in Black Sea supported by Turkish Flotilla wiping out the Soviet Black Sea Fleet. . Soviets also trouble with Chechen Partisans but remain in control of Crimea. East Turkey will be partisan active territory once occupied by opposing Alliance player. Anyway... works fine?
I even saw A.I. all Turky (re)conquering Caucasus... splendid! ;

Next step to get a few more "Pro active Undecided Minors" :
I was thinking of: Portugal, Spain.. Sweden for example, could declare war to russians... if Russians will take Finland and or North Norway?
brasil and Mexico will allways join Allies
while Argentina will side with Axis if other South American Pro Axis countries are harrassed by Allies.

Also wanne make a swap for Italy If 2 of its 3 mainland Home-territories'are occupied...

Schulz

@ebbe the Axis could still reinforce the Black Sea by using Danube River. Though not sure if it was wide enough to transport any kind of warships. Also not sure if all Axis Submarines were be able to sneake the Black Sea via staits.

Western Turkey was way more populated and industrialized than the Eastern one. If there will be partisan activity in Eastern Turkey, i can see no reason why wouldn't it be in the Western Turkey as well.

Realistically I don't think Spain and Portugal would declare war on Russia just because Finland and N.Norway were occupied. If they are completely occupied then it means the Russians already took back all of its original territories since Finnish front was the least important front for Russians.

It would definitely worsened the relations between Russia and Sweden but still not enough casus belli plus nations wouldn't want to join wars on loser side.

I think there is no scenario which Portugal joins the Axis.

Spain could have joined the Axis only if she was confident that Britain is already about to lose the war and significant German assist will be ensured. Spanish entry into the war could led Portugese entry into the war as well.

Spanish entry also could led conflicts between Spain and Vichy France over the control of African colonies.

Also iirc both Spain and the Soviets (until the Barbarossa) harbored the u-boats.

I have no knowlegde about Mexico and Brazil in WWII. Maybe they would delay their entance on the war if Germany decided not operate u-boats near of these countries?

The Italian situation is complicated maybe @Cernel could correct me.

I can't understand why Mussolini was so unguarded when it became appear that there was no way to stop upcoming Allies invasion of Italy without heavy German assistance which they already refused to fight for controlling Southern Italy and start to suspect Italian loyalty to Axis. At this point, Germans were interested in controlling Northern and Central Italy whatever Mussolini wanted or not.

It is not clear for me would Mussolini still be out voted and arrested even if Allies failed to invade Italy? Or couldn't Mussolini be so unguarded and prevent Italy switching side?

There was already heavy German presence in Italy and Italian occupied territories when the armstice signed and the Germans just disarm the Italian army then rearmed when Italian Social Republic created.

Turning Italy to Allies after losing Sicily and S.Italy is realistic but I don't think it was an unavoidable outcome. Nations may surrender without losing any land or not surrender even after losing %95 of lands. It really depends on parameters.

I think it would be more realistic turning Italy Allies with a possibility rather than automatically turning it Allies when southern one get occupied by the Allies.

Hepps

@ebbe How do the Minor Neutrals produce new units?

Hepps

@ebbe said in WW2 Oil and Snow (1st ed.) NEW MAP RELEASE:

@schulz

Okej: Turkey adapted: starts neutral, but there is allways the chance they will join Allies or Axis throughout the game
(by a few chance rolls & bigger chance if this Alliance is performing well in conquering Victory cities )
and by this opening the Dardanelles for the Navy from and towards Black Sea... which I think is strategically interesting

Once part of the war, units will switch to active, coloured units and will be commanded by British or Germans depending on Alliance-choice.
If joining Allies the relation with USSR remains Neutral due to old tensions .

Example: Turkish troops are activated after Turkey joining the Axis...
and receive GArrison Reinforcements.
Suddenly the Italian Navy appears in Black Sea supported by Turkish Flotilla wiping out the Soviet Black Sea Fleet. . Soviets also trouble with Chechen Partisans but remain in control of Crimea. East Turkey will be partisan active territory once occupied by opposing Alliance player. Anyway... works fine?
I even saw A.I. all Turky (re)conquering Caucasus... splendid! ;

Next step to get a few more "Pro active Undecided Minors" :
I was thinking of: Portugal, Spain.. Sweden for example, could declare war to russians... if Russians will take Finland and or North Norway?
brasil and Mexico will allways join Allies
while Argentina will side with Axis if other South American Pro Axis countries are harrassed by Allies.

Also wanne make a swap for Italy If 2 of its 3 mainland Home-territories'are occupied...

The one thing I noted during the development of TWW was that the spontaneous addition of neutral countries to either side of the conflict was an issue for players since it had fairly dramatic effects on game balance. Players did not like having a highly competitive match change instantly in the middle of a game. Just an FYI.

ebbe

@schulz Wow that is a long post... reading through it:
okej:

1. danube navy-transportAxis: The only ships transported were fastboats and some small subs which were transported in parts.. and then reassembled in Constanca...

2. Western Turkey Partisans: I choose East Trueky: which is an assumption: as more mountaineous and less populated I could imagine it to be a perfect Partisan Heaven

3.--> "Realistically I don't think Spain and Portugal would declare war on Russia just because Finland and N.Norway were occupied."
Me too this trigger was reserved for Sweden only..
which still would but unlikely but I ended up in the Experimental Game Department so I just give it a try I like to make a more historical path scenario and another more free scenario...later.....maybe just declare War to USSR only , and swedish units limited to reconquer scandinavian territory? All very speculative ofcourse....
4. I think there is no scenario which Portugal joins the Axis:
I agree too... the treaty with UK seems strong....

5. Spain could have joined the Axis only if she was confident that Britain is already about to lose the war and significant German assist will be ensured. Spanish entry into the war could led Portugese entry into the war as well. That is the way I like to fix... very small change they would join early after devastating Civilwar, but I agree, more likely when Axis could like say occupy 3 or 4 Allied Victory cities for example

6Mexico and Brazil in WWII. they entered mexican mostly with airforce and brasil with an expeditionary force in africa

The italian case: I think I try if 3 out of 4 main Italian terr.'s are occupied ( N/s Italy, Rome and or Sicily ) surrender most units and continue as Allies partner with few Infantry and garrison only.

@ Hepps, thanks for the suggestion : I can understand that point:
but Turkey is small in Army size, and its PU's go to no one;
so I think it is just a sudden shock of the momentum of stepping in, not a game changer....?? How Turkey gets more units? Just by fixed limited
annual or biennial Infantry reinforcement only. To keep impact small but their representation alive in the game.

maybe I should take a break in this project untill I had time to take a
distance for bit more objective review Like I said I would.. haha...

before I might even think about let the USSR clash by chance with Allies after the Axis surrender and trigger the Comunist revolution in China.... well that sounds interesting though... hahaha.....

jkprince

I am back after a long hiatus to make a comment about the addition of neutral diplomacy... If you are to make these neutrals able to take a part in the war their territories should be revised and divided into three to four territories in order to make it so at least they do not fall in a single turn, and also allow them to be given slightly more PU income as to make them relevant ingame.
Attached is examples where I applied the process to Spain, Sweden and Turkey (obviously in a very simple manner)

ebbe

@joseph-prince Hej thanks for the suggestion, I fully agree in strategical perspective... but: I decided with my map size that most Terr's should be able to place at least 9 units without stacking.... and the proposed divisions would also need adaption in other terr's around the globe... or a bigger map in total.... for both options I lack the time...

How is testing this map by the way? You were my very first tester and haven't heard from you for a month or so...

jkprince

Plenty of units can fit in each territory even without making any adjustments to my disgusting border outlines! (and considering the fact these neutral nations didn't have large militaries you won't have to fit very many)

Anyway, I have played through the game numerous times, my most recent time I played I had a few annoyances...

The sound meant for when you conquer an enemy capital, with the screaming and shooting and "dun dunn" sound plays when you capture any victory city, even if you are liberating it. When the Free French liberates Paris there should be cheering and fireworks and the sound of a populace welcoming the liberators. This could potentially be changed by giving more territories original owners. This is particularly in the case of occupied France (Paris) and China (Shanghai) which are treated as if they have always been owned by their conquerors ingame
The japanese for an unknown reason decided capturing Mongolia is more worthwhile than continuing the invasion of China. They moved every single unit over to the border with Mongolia and Russia and completely ignored me (I was playing as China)
The newly added game start sound is extremely loud and overly dramatic. It also sometimes continues to play even when the German turn start sound is starting. I think a quieter and shorter starting sound would be much more preferable.

Schulz

@ebbe Sweden would never declare war on USSR just because Finland and N.Norway occupied. The Western Allies also would declare war on Sweden if it was the case since the British declaration of wars on Finland, Hungary and Romania showed that there is no way to conduct the war against the USSR separately.

Realistically I advise preventing any country being able to at war with the Soviets only.

Bulgaria is exception because it did't fight on the Eastern front (though they helped the Axis on the Black Sea). Also no clue why did they declare war on the US and the UK but not the Soviets.

the US never declared war on Finland as far as i know. I think it shows the USA should be unable to declare war on countries if they don't declare war on the US like Finland.

BTW there were actually three different kind participants. It wasn't just being in Axis/Allies or Neutral. They should be definitely represented if realism will be very hih priority.

Total participants
Partial participants
Formal participant

The first ones are full fledged combatants which committed almost all of its resources to conduct total war. The seconds ones did participate but never conduct total war economy or even sometimes only did send a token force.

For example Brazil was obviously capable to mobilize more than 26.000 troops but they didn't. It is considered token force so it would be very unrealistic having Brazil collecting all of its incomes without any penalty and being able to spend all of it for mobilizations which not happened even slightiest.

Romania-Hungary case is similar they weren't total participants either. They have keps significant forces against each other's border despite being on the same alliance.

Some of them just declared war on the Axis formally without contributing Allies war efford. Turkey for example did declre war on Germany and Japan but never committed on the war.

I think Italy could still surrender even if Allies never invaded Italy. Lets assume after taking N.Africa, Allies just decide to invade France and not Italy in 1943 and successfully carried out. After that Italy would likely abandon the Axis. Hungary had similar situation which tried to abandon the Axis way before the Soviets reached their border.

ebbe

@joseph-prince said in WW2 Oil and Snow (1st ed.) NEW MAP RELEASE:

are lib

Hej thanks for feedback:

yes liberation should sound different, lost it on my to do list thnxs
A.I. response japanese
: can I do something about that...hmm.. I have the feeling A.I. sometimes just takes different approaches... to be less predictable, that was certainely the vcase this time then....
Music softer.... I 'll fix that... the drama I like somehow... but true it has been a headache issue solving the sounds at intro... still on my list if solvable at all...

and about the Spain placement suggestion: I choose a game with Name /terrain Labels, they acquire some space also

ebbe

@schulz okej thanks for sharing this views...you definately educated me & convinced me with strong arguments....... history sometimes is a complex thing... let's game ...

jkprince

@ebbe
It still can fit a good number of units each territory, even with the sizable name and terrain labels. Also, many players like to lower the unit size, so in some cases even more could fit

ebbe

@joseph-prince yes, for Sweden it was planned to do so... but I am moving slowly piece by piece...

jkprince

@ebbe Ok, I am just saying that each neutral should have at least 3-4 territories not necessarily in the layout I posted, but in a way that a land invasion of the country cannot take the capital in a single turn. What will be the colours of the new neutral countries units? (I see Turkey is yellow, I presume Sweden will be light blue or turquoise while Spain will be purple?)

Also, a slightly unrelated question... once you finish this 1941 version will you make any variants from earlier in the war? In particular I want to see either a 1939 or a 1936 (which would have a greatly more complex diplomacy system) version. Or are there any other projects you are thinking of?

Schulz

I can see no good reasons of having WWII scenarios before 1941 honestly.

It won't be interesting to see Germany conquering Poland, France or the Balkans all the time. It is repetitive and controlling these kind of nations without much choice wouldn't be enjoyable.

Yes realistically Germany could bogged down on the Northern France and it would led and interesting alternative history but WWII would just end in here.

I've always though what is the point of having France in NWO/WaW when it is doomed to fall in r3? Why not just strting the game just after the Fall of France?