June Game

Man yours, and others' guns! ...Sundays 8PM-11PM EST
Post Reply
greyhoundgames
Field Marshall
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:51 pm

June Game

Post: # 95528Post greyhoundgames
Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:04 pm

META Items:
Start Date: June 2019, 8PM Eastern Standard Time
Game Host/Caller: greyhound or somebody else
MODs: Alex mod Improved Historical Vs 7
Voice Comms: Discord


ALLIES
UK - Grey
SOV - Bill
USA - Unbutu
AUS- Zarin
CAN -
RAJ - Mikey
CHI -
FRA -
MEX -

**** Garnet<--- not sure yet, depends on confirmations from people to know which team needs more people.

Axis
GER - Ummd
JAP - VR
ITA - Joe
ROM - Har
ESP -
MAN -
HUN
SPAIN
SIAM
Finland - Garnet

Requests:
Mikey Japan,USA,Italy
Bill UK,Russia Raj, USA
VR Japan,Italy,USA
Har (Maybe) USA,SOV,ITA <-Not sure how Russia and USA would work on a maybe(does maybe translate to intermitent?). Italy is prob the only fairly-intermitent-proof nation here.
Greyhound - Whatever helps the group the most
Aphro around, maybe sub some day, but not assigned a nation until july.
Joe-Japan, Italy, UK
Ummd-Any major
Garnet-mexico,aus,france

It has been requested we avoid sitting around and scheming up killer strategies and have a good old fashion brawl (mostly applies to me)
Rules:

*REMOVED DUE TO ALEX MOD *Research*
*Techs can only be researched a maximum of:*
*X years of ahead of time if the nation has a specific tech bonus of X years*
*1 year ahead of time for all other techs (i.e., cannot begin researching a 1941 tech until at earliest Jan 1st 1940)*
*Not Removed the last one*
Production licenses can only be granted one year ahead of time.

********************
Access
Military access diplo option and docking rites diplo options disallowed as a test
The italian navy must remain in the med until gibralter or suez falls.
**********************

Factions
Once a nation joins a faction, it may not join another. The Co-Prosperity Sphere and the United Front are factions.
China must be alone or in the united front, not the comterm or the allies.

World Tension & War
Generally speaking, Allies players should refrain from taking actions that increase WT for solely that purpose.
No nation may begin Creating a War Justification outside of National Focuses prior to 1939. Pressing Claims provided via NF is allowed.
Spain may not join the Axis until after the fall of France.
Spain may not be called into war until after USA joins the war on the side of the Allies.
Any attack on Gibraltar must include an Amphibious Assault when initiating a combat. Participating land combat may continue after Amphibious assault, however. If combat is broken, a new Amphib must be initiated for each subsequent attack.
War participants should make efforts to ensure all Nations in WW2 are indeed at war with all opposing nations of WW2, unless a mutual agreement/NAP is in place.
Mexico may not enter the war until USA does

Volunteers
You may only send volunteers to one participant nation of any given war.
Divisions sent as volunteers may only contain Infantry type battalions.
If a human play joins japan's faction via the NF, they are allowed to join the war. The NF must be used to bring them into the war otherwise you could get around the justify rules and have everybody join japans faction and be at war.

National Focus Decisions
No Nation may take "alternate history" paths which change their government type or faction destiny.
Non-historical nations must choose a NF path which leads to their prescribed Faction.
Japan may not begin the Marco Polo NF until after Jan 1937.
China may not give into Marco Polo if triggered after June 1937. (to prevent 1938 start sino-jap war)
France must accept historical Vichy, then assume Free France or change to another Allied nation.
France cannot give his fleet to UK via the descision
Soviet Union must accept MR if triggered prior to Danzig.
Allies may not interfere with Pre-Danzig historical German expansion.
US must take "Neutrality" focus.

Diplomacy
Players may not Support Party in other player-controlled nations, unless requested by that nation.
Players may not Coup other nations.

Nation-Switching
If a player would like to switch to another nation currently in a friendly faction, then the player must announce it on the forum during the week. If a player's nation is capitulated, they may switch once within a session to friendly faction. The game-caller may consult with the opposing faction and decide if 1) it is allowed and 2) a temporary cease-fire is needed.
Last edited by greyhoundgames on Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:08 am, edited 11 times in total.

greyhoundgames
Field Marshall
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:51 pm

Re: June Game

Post: # 95529Post greyhoundgames
Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:23 pm

An argument for non human china or spain(less so for spain).
Our games are really borring for the allied players for the first 2-3 years. If there is no china, there is no need for a 2-3 year speed 2 war in china...

This is in addition to the other problems that seem to be cropping up around human china.

jmland
General
Posts: 252
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:39 am

Re: June Game

Post: # 95530Post jmland
Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:34 pm

Question:

Which version of Alex's mod should we plan on using? (v5, v6, v7) V7 is set up for 1.7 Hydra
Same question regarding the Hydra 1.7 (currently in Beta, but stable)

Edit: I think we should address the military access issue more restrictively.

For example, UK and Russia are at war with Germany, the way things are now, UK (and Raj, because Raj will have a couple of hundred divisions) troops could enter Russia and line up on the Manchurian border in prep for a combined DOW on Japan.

I think that the following would be a better compromise:

Military access may not be granted to members of an allied but separate faction until the grantor's capital has fallen or the grantor nation has reached more than 50% surrender progress.

greyhoundgames
Field Marshall
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:51 pm

Re: June Game

Post: # 95532Post greyhoundgames
Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:23 pm

So the verdict is still out on wether military access is 100% fine, ok, or terrible.

Last time we took opinions aphro, har, myself, and a number of others thought it was perfectly fine because in order to put troops in place A they are not in place B and person in place B should be able to take advantage of this.

I do agree that using peace time to sneak troops unmolested could be a problem hence my compromise.

This is probably the right moment to get more opinions on this.

My earlier point on the japan\china issue with US troops arriving was that the USA is supposed to be doing stuff in the mid 40s and the axis has to deal with that, whatever it might be. Its bad-strategy to tie the hands of the US and say you can only attack in Europe and Africa because that is where your faction is based.

I think in this game having a human china which made the conquest much slower, greatly exaggerated a problem that may not be really a big deal. No china means japan controls asia. Means nobody can make landings, means russia has a big thread in the east to deal with. The only place for the allies to land troops in this situation is the far north russia. There are things that can be done about that and its also important to note that in both the asia and western europe fronts, most of the supply zones were fully and the allies were constantly saying, what can i do with all these US\Chinese troops? And the answer was pull them back, theres no supply at the front. Only the caucaus had extra supply.

Also my final point is that japan+germany+italy+1 minor in europe all going against russia, in a game where allied troops are not allowed to enter russia, is a recipe for a massively overwhelmed russia which doesn't really seem fair.

mikeydz
Field Marshall
Posts: 1199
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:25 am

Re: June Game

Post: # 95533Post mikeydz
Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:47 pm

jmland wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:34 pm
Question:

Which version of Alex's mod should we plan on using? (v5, v6, v7) V7 is set up for 1.7 Hydra
Same question regarding the Hydra 1.7 (currently in Beta, but stable)

Edit: I think we should address the military access issue more restrictively.

For example, UK and Russia are at war with Germany, the way things are now, UK (and Raj, because Raj will have a couple of hundred divisions) troops could enter Russia and line up on the Manchurian border in prep for a combined DOW on Japan.

I think that the following would be a better compromise:

Military access may not be granted to members of an allied but separate faction until the grantor's capital has fallen or the grantor nation has reached more than 50% surrender progress.
If we are going to restrict MA, why not restrict it by division count. Zarin stated that during this session, he felt the MA was possibly excessive. Looking at the end of the game, there were 109 "Foreign Divisions" at the Soviet/Axis front (7 CW, 66 US, 36 China), plus a fair bunch of US troops back away from the front. So why not do something like "No country can send more than X divisions to another country not in it's alliance via MA" or set the limit at the alliance level as "No alliance may have more than Y divisions on another alliance's territory via MA".

The problems I see with Joe's suggestion is on one hand, it might be to restrictive. By the time a countries capital has fallen or it get's to 50% capitulation, the ship may have sailed on saving that country, unless (and here's the other hand, where it might not be restrictive enough) the savior country has a huge number of division sitting waiting to jump in?

For the just concluded game, would it have been better if as soon as Moscow falls, 100 Indian divisions roar up thru Afghanistan while at the same time 100 US and 50 UK divisions land at Arkhangelsk in the north? Your proposal Joe would technically allow that.

Note that whatever we do, I don't want a rule that protects an "All in" playstyle where a player can safely devote their entire army on one front and leave an entire border unprotected. It was mentioned again in the post game Japan having to redirect 100 divisions to cover the massive border was a major reason the Sphere's China attack stalled out. But my argument is that border should have never been unprotected in the first place. I don't want to make playing Japan (or any country for that matter) in that manner a safe and reasonable thing.
Image

Bill
Field Marshall
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:09 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: June Game

Post: # 95534Post Bill
Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:01 pm

If we are discussing teams, there are a couple ways to establish teams:

1. Nation preference (players state their top preferences...the gamemaster tries to maximize the number of first choices)
2. Captain's draw: 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2 (is that how it works?)
3. Gamemaster (or other) draws up teams.
4. Random assignments
5. ___________ (insert other method here)
6. Server versus Server game.

Bill
Field Marshall
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:09 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: June Game

Post: # 95535Post Bill
Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:04 pm

jmland wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:34 pm

Which version of Alex's mod should we plan on using? (v5, v6, v7) V7 is set up for 1.7 Hydra
I'd recommend Alex 0.7 for 1.7 Hydra.

On Tuesday, 4 June, Alex 0.7 for 1.7 Hydra will be tested in a 10 person multiplayer game at 11 AM Pacific time, 2 PM East Coast time.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/in ... e.1180346/

mikeydz
Field Marshall
Posts: 1199
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:25 am

Re: June Game

Post: # 95536Post mikeydz
Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:28 pm

Bill wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:01 pm
If we are discussing teams, there are a couple ways to establish teams:

1. Nation preference (players state their top preferences...the gamemaster tries to maximize the number of first choices)
2. Captain's draw: 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2 (is that how it works?)
3. Gamemaster (or other) draws up teams.
4. Random assignments
5. ___________ (insert other method here)
6. Server versus Server game.
1. Basically the standard method.
2. I'm assuming 2 players are designated captain and pick their team from the remaining pool of players? In that case, the pick order you posted is basically a snake draft. Not a completely horrible idea.
3. With nothing to guide the "picker"? Players may end up playing a country they don't want. If players get to refuse, then it basically devolves into method 1, so why even bother.
4. Completely random means again, you could end up playing with a country you absolutely hate. Not good for player retention if players are forces to play countries they either don't like or don't feel capable of playing. And again, if a player can refuse the random assignment, then what's the point.
5. Real life fight to the death. Positive is winners get to pick the their choice of country. Negative is losers are dead, which may negatively affect how they play.
6. I don't think the server/server game is in the cards, at least with Alex's server, due to time zone issues.

I think the standard method (basically #1) is basically the best.
Image

mikeydz
Field Marshall
Posts: 1199
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:25 am

Re: June Game

Post: # 95537Post mikeydz
Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:29 pm

And assuming we go with the standard "pick countries you want to play next game" I choose...

Japan
USA
Italy
Image

Bill
Field Marshall
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:09 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: June Game

Post: # 95538Post Bill
Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:36 pm

mikeydz wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:29 pm
And assuming we go with the standard "pick countries you want to play next game" I choose...

Japan
USA
Italy
Preferences?
Preferences!

1. United K.
2. United S.S.R.
3. United Raj
4. United S.

User avatar
virtualrock
Field Marshall
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:47 pm

Re: June Game

Post: # 95542Post virtualrock
Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:39 am

Japan
Italy
USA

User avatar
Zarin_lives
Field Marshall
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:04 am

Re: June Game

Post: # 95543Post Zarin_lives
Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:53 am

mikeydz wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:28 pm

5. Real life fight to the death. Positive is winners get to pick the their choice of country. Negative is losers are dead, which may negatively affect how they play.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
A dingo ate my baby!

User avatar
harbringerxv8
Field Marshall
Posts: 1600
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:54 pm
Location: Orange County

Re: June Game

Post: # 95550Post harbringerxv8
Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:03 pm

I'm a maybe for this one, as I'll be taking an intensive language course over the next two months or so. I'll definitely be able to start, but how long I continue is directly tied to my workload.

With that said...

My preferences are USA, SOV, ITA. I'd put Germany in there, but given the fluid nature of my schedule I think a consistent plan for GER would be preferable.
-Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Bill
Field Marshall
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:09 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: June Game

Post: # 95551Post Bill
Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:22 pm

harbringerxv8 wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:03 pm
I'd put Germany in there, but given the fluid nature of my schedule I think a consistent plan for GER would be preferable.
Right. We need a good Germany.

You'd be a good German player.

Anyone else want to power this train?
aphrochine wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:55 am
GER has always been the principle nation of the game, with one of the top players filling that role.
No co-ops necessary.
aphrochine wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:55 am
I feel that Co-Oping, like war, is only lobbied for by those who haven't truly experienced it. (sorry, had to give Bill a quotable line)
:bravo:
Last edited by Bill on Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jmland
General
Posts: 252
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:39 am

Re: June Game

Post: # 95552Post jmland
Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:35 pm

mikeydz wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:47 pm

If we are going to restrict MA, why not restrict it by division count. Zarin stated that during this session, he felt the MA was possibly excessive. Looking at the end of the game, there were 109 "Foreign Divisions" at the Soviet/Axis front (7 CW, 66 US, 36 China), plus a fair bunch of US troops back away from the front. So why not do something like "No country can send more than X divisions to another country not in it's alliance via MA" or set the limit at the alliance level as "No alliance may have more than Y divisions on another alliance's territory via MA".
IIRC there were some Raj troops there at one time also, but they may have moved elsewhere by the time the save was taken.

The X and Y thing is a "not bad" suggestion. I would think that it would not be a "hard" X and Y but maybe something similar to how volunteers are limited, i.e. a certain % of ones force pool. I THINK volunteers are something like 5%. That being said, the question then is how to figure the "Y".

mikeydz wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:47 pm

Note that whatever we do, I don't want a rule that protects an "All in" playstyle where a player can safely devote their entire army on one front and leave an entire border unprotected. It was mentioned again in the post game Japan having to redirect 100 divisions to cover the massive border was a major reason the Sphere's China attack stalled out. But my argument is that border should have never been unprotected in the first place. I don't want to make playing Japan (or any country for that matter) in that manner a safe and reasonable thing.
I agree that Lobo/Nixon should never have left the border naked. The original Manchukuo and Mengokuo forces (12 divisions) plus their standard AI puppet builds (i.e. not what Japan builds for war in China)- approx another 10+ divs-would have at least slowed any surprise attack. More importantly I think, it (well-maybe with some additional divisions) would have prevented (or maybe at least delayed) the DOW because of the NAP restrictions. (As I don't know when they took (if they did) the NAP with Soviets Focus)

That being said, should we maybe have a rule on the Japanese/Russian border and NAP? For example,
-from the time the NAP is made, for 1 year (I think) game mechanics prevent a DOW (no problem here) Also, game mechanics mandate for breaking an NAP, you have to have some specific force ratios over your opponent (can't remember what they are at the moment)

-after 1 year, if the opposing side has at least 24 divisions (must be real divisions, no single bn spam, minimum width of....12???) on the shared border, you can not declare war
-after 2 years, 48 divisions are required
after 3 years, 72 divisions are required.
after 4 years 96 divisions
thus by 1945, it becomes almost impossible to keep the NAP in force, but earlier is can be done with a reasonable commitment.

This would protect both nations from being unprepared for an attack, and prevent an attack (assuming force levels are met).
The player can always ignore this and suffer the fate of General Elphinstone.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest