Fall Grau question

[Xandamere]

I have a couple games of this going as both the Allies and the Axis, and I've noticed something about this scenario....is there any good reason to NOT invade Mexico on turn 1 or 2? You're practically guaranteed to get Tampico, Vera Cruz, and Mexico City (60 vps, 20% replacements, and the supply bonus!) for a very small amount of troops. Furthermore, the primary task of the Axis early in the game is to make as long a front as possible so the Allies have a very thin line, and Mexico is big and here it's easily to accomplish this task. Furthermore, the Mexican Army doesn't reconstitute, and they are the perfect troops to garrison beaches, forcing the Allied player to use more valuable troops instead.

So with all of these factors, what speaks against deploying a handful of divisions to Mexico? You probably need maybe 10 total to ensure an early capture of Mexico City, and you can fill in more if you want to advance north and worry the Americans from that side. I have yet to see a compelling argument for not invading Mexico, it really seems like the most tempting invasion spot.

[Mantis]

I invade Mexico in every game I play as the Axis, with perhaps the exception of a game where I land right in the industrial heartland, centered around Baltimore, Boston and Quebec. In this situation, you might not be able to afford those divisions to the south, depending on how things go.

[Chuck?]

My match against Mantis is the first time I've played this scenario but I agree that Mexico looks like the best place to land. The two cities along the coast, Tampico and Vera Cruz, both have 10% replacement reductions and Axis supply points. After taking these cities Mexico City is only a few hundred kilometers away, yielding a 20% replacement reduction and +10 Axis supply for several turns.

After this the Axis player can do either one of two things:

1.) Give up on Mexico and keep only a small garrison force here to protect the vital cities.

2.) Open up another front to the north and take out Central America to the south.

[Xandamere]

Well because the replacement reduction is permanent, if the Allies send a major force down here you even have the option of just leaving, and then the Allied troops will be far away from any other front.

This is another minor issue I have with the scenario...in one game I landed the Japanese and took Vancouver, then sailed the same Japanese over and took Seattle, then sailed them all back to their island the next turn to rest and refit. Net result: 2 Allied replacement cities downed for minor Axis losses. I think if the Allies take back a city their replacements should go back up after a delay, maybe 5-7 turns as the industrial plants are repaired and go back online. It's a long scenario, so feasibly there would be enough time to repair the industry. It'd take a lot of time and effort to thoroughly and completely destroy all of the factories in a city. I don't know if Jeremy has the events available to do this, unfortunately.

[Chuck?]

Well because the replacement reduction is permanent, if the Allies send a major force down here you even have the option of just leaving, and then the Allied troops will be far away from any other front.

That's true but also I don't want the Allies to get the reinforcements that might pop up in these cities. My invasion force involved second line units (German mountain infantry and the Colombian Army) so this isn't much of a force to commit.

I think if the Allies take back a city their replacements should go back up after a delay, maybe 5-7 turns as the industrial plants are repaired and go back online. It's a long scenario, so feasibly there would be enough time to repair the industry. It'd take a lot of time and effort to thoroughly and completely destroy all of the factories in a city. I don't know if Jeremy has the events available to do this, unfortunately.

There isn't enough events for this. For each city it would take several additional events to make the change reversible.

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Xandamere
Well because the replacement reduction is permanent, if the Allies send a major force down here you even have the option of just leaving, and then the Allied troops will be far away from any other front.

This is another minor issue I have with the scenario...in one game I landed the Japanese and took Vancouver, then sailed the same Japanese over and took Seattle, then sailed them all back to their island the next turn to rest and refit. Net result: 2 Allied replacement cities downed for minor Axis losses. I think if the Allies take back a city their replacements should go back up after a delay, maybe 5-7 turns as the industrial plants are repaired and go back online. It's a long scenario, so feasibly there would be enough time to repair the industry. It'd take a lot of time and effort to thoroughly and completely destroy all of the factories in a city. I don't know if Jeremy has the events available to do this, unfortunately.

This would throw the game balance right out of whack for what's currenlty in place. And as Chuck points out, there simply aren't enough events. And try playing the US... I'm at 43% replacement rate right now, and I *still* make more than enough to go around. If we made the cities 'repairable', the rates would have to be further adjusted. Further, this drop could be explained with the 'trickle down' effect. Perhaps the city does come back online, but the 10% drop represents the permanent harm done to the allied industry by the loss of the city, it's production, and what that production could have represented had it not been 'gone' for X number of turns.

Put another way:

In a scenario with hundreds of units, what are an extra 5 infantry divisions worth in the last few turns of the game? What are they worth right on the invasion beachhead from turn 1? Very subjective.

[Xandamere]

Fair enough, fair enough...it just feels odd that I can conduct these raids with the Japanese and achieve the same effect that I would get if I took and held the city (the same effect on replacements and industry that is, not operational effect). Alas, I guess the event engine just doesn't have the spaces available to deal with that.

And we'll see how long your 43% replacements hold up. I'm in a game on turn 13 where I have 30% replacements due to a disaster involving New York and the east coast as well as an invasion of Mexico. I still have a strong army and I've managed to hold off my opponent's advances for the last few turns, but I can see that my army is weakening as my built-up pool of squads diminishes each turn. I'll be curious to see how that one turns out for you Mantis, is that the one you're writing an AAR for?

[Chuck?]

One solution to improving the Mexico situation: move the 10 point cities to Guadalajara and Monterrey. Both of these cities are far larger than Tampico and Veracruz. Also since they are in the interior the Allies will have a chance to put up some kind of defense.

Based on the map layout it will be very difficult for the Axis player to go after all three cities in the early going. Guadalajara is Mexico's second largest city and is located west of Mexico City, close to the Pacific Ocean. Monterrey is the third largest city and is located north of Mexico City, near the Rio Grande River.

Also the middle of Mexico should have more desert and hills, less plains and forest. This area is shown as a plateau on many maps but is still quite hilly and barren.

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Xandamere
Fair enough, fair enough...it just feels odd that I can conduct these raids with the Japanese and achieve the same effect that I would get if I took and held the city (the same effect on replacements and industry that is, not operational effect). Alas, I guess the event engine just doesn't have the spaces available to deal with that.

Those raids are quite difficult to pull off without a tremendous amount of resources, should the US decide to put up a reasonable defence. It doesn't take too much on the Allied side to make sure that the Japs (or Germans) require stacks to be sure of pulling off the operation.

And we'll see how long your 43% replacements hold up. I'm in a game on turn 13 where I have 30% replacements due to a disaster involving New York and the east coast as well as an invasion of Mexico. I still have a strong army and I've managed to hold off my opponent's advances for the last few turns, but I can see that my army is weakening as my built-up pool of squads diminishes each turn.

I doubt that you'll have long term problems. I already have twice my total losses stacked up in the pool for almost all forms of rifle squads. (In one case, I have over 20X my losses stacked up). I believe, from both my personal experiences and lurking on the 60 page FG thread on TDG, that it is virtually impossible to have a shortage. The common belief is that you will always have an excess, even if you lose! :surprise:

And although it might just be possible to have a bit of a shortage, I can't imagine the game that would take. Secondly, if such a case were to occur, I imagine the Germans would be bled white.

I'll be curious to see how that one turns out for you Mantis, is that the one you're writing an AAR for?

Yup, writing an AAR for all current games of Fall Grau. Both are up to date with my current turn, and both are available in the AAR forum.

Have a peek at this:

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Chuck
One solution to improving the Mexico situation: move the 10 point cities to Guadalajara and Monterrey. Both of these cities are far larger than Tampico and Veracruz. Also since they are in the interior the Allies will have a chance to put up some kind of defense.

Based on the map layout it will be very difficult for the Axis player to go after all three cities in the early going. Guadalajara is Mexico's second largest city and is located west of Mexico City, close to the Pacific Ocean. Monterrey is the third largest city and is located north of Mexico City, near the Rio Grande River.

Also the middle of Mexico should have more desert and hills, less plains and forest. This area is shown as a plateau on many maps but is still quite hilly and barren.

Although that might make a bit more sense reality-wise, I suspect that Jeremy has taken a bit of license to ensure that all invasion routes are 'equally' attractive. I, for one, wouldn't likely ever invade Mexico again under your changes. It's the ease of capture of these two cities, and the quick conquest of Mexico City, perhaps with a side of 'this will not be such a hotly contested initial beachhead' that makes people choose this site. (Some people complain quite strongly that the Mexicans can be lined up better initially. Perhaps - but again, that would just hurt this invasion route as a potential Axis choice).

There are already alot of things against this choice. You're basically in the ******* of America, if you'll pardon my French. You're not close to *anything*. If you don't make good progress, you'll get squashed. Mexico City is 22 hexes away from your next industrial city. That's a long trek!

[Xandamere]

I disagree with you, Mantis. I don't think there's really much arguing against an invasion of Mexico. You're right in that it's quite far to the next industrial city, but Mexico practically guarantees 4 industrial cities down in the early game (counting Mexico City as 2) plus the incredibly valuable supply bonus, for really very little effort compared to how hard it would be to take 4 industrial cities anywhere else. The early-game supply bonus is also a huge factor, and this is the only real place to get it...taking New York that early is damn near impossible.

You end up really far away from any other industrial city, but in invading Mexico you open up a really long front that the Allies have to defend at least in some fashion, taking a lot of their pieces away from other battles. I would be in favor of moving the industrial point at Tampico somewhere else, probably Monterey...that way it's still pretty close to the beachhead of Tampico. This still leaves the Mexico option quite attractive, since you can still easily take Vera Cruz and Mexico City, but at least the U.S. player will have a chance to get down there and defend Monterey, forcing the Axis to commit more forces to take it.

Simply put, in my opinion, a Mexico invasion (even if it's just a secondary front) offers too many gains for too little expenditure.

[Mantis]

It's not so clear cut. The Axis simply do not have the staying power the Allies do even if they don't take a hit to their replacements to bolster transport. They can't fight forever, they run out of steam. Have you played this scenario through to the end? It's alot like EA in the games where the German has simply lost too many HRSs, and all his infantry korps will never get past half-sized... And it only takes a handful of turns for the US player to get a line in place pretty much anywhere, and after that, you have to scrap for every hex...

In my game (as Axis) with Mensch, I took out New York fairly quickly, and I really don't think he could have gotten anything else into it, except for airlifting HQs. I had local 'air parity' by turn 2, so some of these moves would have failed. Also, being quite good at 'supply attacks' and getting several rounds in, I don't think this would have made much of a difference. The paras were dropped in such a way (and a dozen or so bridges blown in my opening moves) that there was simply no reinforcing fortress New York.

I just 'looked' at the US situation after my invasion. (No conflict of interest here, Mensch had not even seen the game at this point. All US units are in known (read: starting) locations).

There is not a single unit outside the area that he could get in to the beachhead by land routes or rail. His only options were to keep New York stuffed to the 9s, which would let me eat pretty much all of this area, and be right on the borders of New York for the next turn; or keep NY defended, but strip some units away to slow down my advance. This is what he did, and it took some heavy fighting to make good my advances. As it was, he kept NY safe for several turns, and I don't think it would have held that long had he 'stuffed' NY in the first place, as I would've been nailing him with supply drain attacks from the getgo, and that doesn't sit too well when you're already at minimum levels of readiness, and generally at 10% supply...

I have 8 industrial cities (counting NY as 2) by turn 6. Norfolk is cutoff and surrounded, and will fall next turn. 9. Montreal barely held, and with 50% losses, will also fall next turn. That's 10. My point is twofold: Even if you say that perhaps NY had held out this long, or even still stood, you'll not find another area anywhere in which you can get this level of success in 6 or 7 turns. Secondly, in an invasion of this nature, you can't afford the Mexico route.

Don't get me wrong. As the Axis, my first 5 invasions of the US started with Mexico as one of the initial beachheads. (I love :love: going for them! This is my favorite invasion route!) But it's part of a different approach. You either go for Mexico, with another landing in location X, or you drive straight for the breadbasket. And a second beachhead with Mexico will almost always end up being the southern US. If you go too far north up the eastern seaboard, you'll get crushed unless you put everything here. The only other practical alternative is Quebec, and, to put it bluntly, this area is a real b*tch.

[Xandamere]

Yeah, I can see not wanting to land in Mexico if you're going to invade the heart of New England and go for New York, you'll need all the troops you can get for that operation. I'm playing a few games of Fall Grau right now, one where I landed initially at Mexico and Norfolk, then on turn 3 landed at Galveston and turn 4 at Boston. Tigersqn has hemmed me in pretty nicely at Boston and Norfolk (although I also captured Hartford, so I have 3 industrial cities down up there, and my troops are next to Albany and close to Philly). I've conquered Mexico, and his strong response in New England has let the forces from Galveston and Mexico basically run rampant heading north, I'm right outside Oklahoma City on turn 9.

I suppose it comes down to a matter of preference, one of the things I love about Fall Grau is there really is no "best" strategy for the Axis to follow. My contention is that Mexico gets very close to one, given that if you land anywhere other than right smack in the middle of New England, you may as well grab Mexico too.

[Chuck?]

Maybe a third 10 point city can be added. This would be the 4th largest city, whatever one that was. Mexico's biggest role during World War Two was providing goods and materials for the American economy. The additional 10 point city is fair as it represents all the oil and raw materials the US war machine would of lost with the fall of the country.

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Xandamere
I'm playing a few games of Fall Grau right now, one where I landed initially at Mexico and Norfolk, then on turn 3 landed at Galveston and turn 4 at Boston. Tigersqn has hemmed me in pretty nicely at Boston and Norfolk (although I also captured Hartford, so I have 3 industrial cities down up there, and my troops are next to Albany and close to Philly). I've conquered Mexico, and his strong response in New England has let the forces from Galveston and Mexico basically run rampant heading north, I'm right outside Oklahoma City on turn 9.


It sounds like the Allies are in trouble in this one. Oklahoma City puts you right in the middle of North America and you can go towards the southeast, industrial midwest, corn belt, or rocky mountains from here. The only thing to watch out for is not getting too stretched in the early going as the Allies outnumber the Axis for the first several turns.

[JeremyMacDonald]

Originally posted by Xandamere
Well because the replacement reduction is permanent, if the Allies send a major force down here you even have the option of just leaving, and then the Allied troops will be far away from any other front.

This is another minor issue I have with the scenario...in one game I landed the Japanese and took Vancouver, then sailed the same Japanese over and took Seattle, then sailed them all back to their island the next turn to rest and refit. Net result: 2 Allied replacement cities downed for minor Axis losses. I think if the Allies take back a city their replacements should go back up after a delay, maybe 5-7 turns as the industrial plants are repaired and go back online. It's a long scenario, so feasibly there would be enough time to repair the industry. It'd take a lot of time and effort to thoroughly and completely destroy all of the factories in a city. I don't know if Jeremy has the events available to do this, unfortunately.
Well I don't have the events to do this...not sure that I would even if I did have the events. The Axis might just come back. As it stands the Allies should try and garrision important areas enough that landing is a major and dangerous undertaking.

The Japanese in particuler are in danger of being thrown back into the sea with heavy losses as they don't have much good anti-tank equipment.

[JeremyMacDonald]

Originally posted by Xandamere
Fair enough, fair enough...it just feels odd that I can conduct these raids with the Japanese and achieve the same effect that I would get if I took and held the city (the same effect on replacements and industry that is, not operational effect). Alas, I guess the event engine just doesn't have the spaces available to deal with that.

And we'll see how long your 43% replacements hold up. I'm in a game on turn 13 where I have 30% replacements due to a disaster involving New York and the east coast as well as an invasion of Mexico. I still have a strong army and I've managed to hold off my opponent's advances for the last few turns, but I can see that my army is weakening as my built-up pool of squads diminishes each turn. I'll be curious to see how that one turns out for you Mantis, is that the one you're writing an AAR for?
Keep in mind that the game is ultimatly won on points. Further if the Axis player ever actually makes a marginal victory for even a turn their is an out of sequence doubling. So lets suppose that your down in the dumps on turn 50 with only 25% replacments. Axis get a marginal victory on turn 52 and that puts you to 50% replacments on turn 54 you recieve teh normal doubling and jump to 100%. Totally recovered from all teh damage taken. Even if the Allies are pounded into the dirt its still possible for them to recover if they can manage to keep the integrity of their army together.

[JeremyMacDonald]

Originally posted by Chuck
One solution to improving the Mexico situation: move the 10 point cities to Guadalajara and Monterrey. Both of these cities are far larger than Tampico and Veracruz. Also since they are in the interior the Allies will have a chance to put up some kind of defense.

They have more population now but did they in '43?

In anycase I was using industrealization as the main criteria for Mexico's cities and the big ones where on the coast and Mexico City itself.

Based on the map layout it will be very difficult for the Axis player to go after all three cities in the early going. Guadalajara is Mexico's second largest city and is located west of Mexico City, close to the Pacific Ocean. Monterrey is the third largest city and is located north of Mexico City, near the Rio Grande River.

Maybe...on the other hand this does give the Axis and Allied players some interesting dilemma's. The Axis can go in in a small way and should be able to take the cities keeping them (and denying the Allies of the Mexican reinforcments) is going to require more commitment. On teh other hand the ycan decide to subsiquently flee for a port but that means an extra turn of sea transport at least and the Allies will get Mexico back and all those lovely Mexicans.

Also the middle of Mexico should have more desert and hills, less plains and forest. This area is shown as a plateau on many maps but is still quite hilly and barren.
I have been told this before. The first time I did a fair sized over haul on the Mexican parts of the map using land use and topography maps but in subsequent checks I could never find the problem. As far as my land use and topography m,aps are concerned this is accurate considering the scale.

[JeremyMacDonald]

Originally posted by Chuck
Maybe a third 10 point city can be added. This would be the 4th largest city, whatever one that was. Mexico's biggest role during World War Two was providing goods and materials for the American economy. The additional 10 point city is fair as it represents all the oil and raw materials the US war machine would of lost with the fall of the country.
Adding anothe rcity would just make it more profitable to invade Mexico. In anycase Mexico is balanced fairly well against Canada and the US in terms of industreal value as it stands and this would knock that out of whack.

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by JeremyMacDonald

They have more population now but did they in '43?
In anycase I was using industrealization as the main criteria for Mexico's cities and the big ones where on the coast and Mexico City itself.

Adding anothe rcity would just make it more profitable to invade Mexico. In anycase Mexico is balanced fairly well against Canada and the US in terms of industreal value as it stands and this would knock that out of whack.

I don't know anything about play balance since this is the first time I've tried the scenario out. Here is a link with the major population centers of Mexico in 1940:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_mexico/urban_population_1940.jpg

[JeremyMacDonald]

Originally posted by Chuck


I don't know anything about play balance since this is the first time I've tried the scenario out. Here is a link with the major population centers of Mexico in 1940:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_mexico/urban_population_1940.jpg
Hmm...

OK you convinced me. Will change the industreal cities too the #2 and #3 ones in the next version. Its a pretty easy change as they are already on the map.

[Mantis]

Interesting!

Does this move them both off the coast?

[Menschenfresser]

Yes it does...and not only that but it puts more distance between them. Mexico City will fall before the #2 does and it will take either an invasion of northern Mexico (if there a port there)? or an invasion of Texas to threaten #3...otherwise #3 is far enough north for the Allies to move some of the Pacific-side units to defend it.

I like this. Am I right in thinking that with these changes, the points normally gained in Mexico could take quite a long time, if not coupled with a Texas invasion?

Although such a change might take Mexico out as the cheap shot it can be now. Looks like to me, it would only be worth the attempt if coupled with a southern US invasion, ie Texas or Louisiana.

[Chuck?]

If the two cities are going to be Guadalajara and Monterrey it does make this front more interesting. Guadalajara is 14 hex from Tampico when traveling by road. The direction is west. Monterrey is 9 hex from Tampico and toward the north. Mexico city is 6 hex from Tampico and in a southwestern direction.

From the Axis perspective, does one go after each objective one-by-one or do you split your forces up to try to take them all at once? For the Allies, is it now worth sending additional reinforcements to this front if you can hold one or more replacement cities?

[Chuck?]

I'm not sure if Monterrey is as safe as you suggest. If the Axis go after it right away they should be there by turn 3 or 4. I have never played as the Allies but don't think they have many divisions in this area at the beginning of the scenario.

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Chuck
From the Axis perspective, does one go after each objective one-by-one or do you split your forces up to try to take them all at once?

Both. You try to gobble terrain as fast as possible, with the smallest units you can get away with (divisions broken into 3s?), but resign yourself to the fact that you will likely have to take them in strength. Grab Mexico City first, and gain the supply bonus, while some forces are working towards the north. Join with them asap, and finish the job. MC should still be able to fall before the Allies can do too much about it, so you can afford to only go half strength at this one.

For the Allies, is it now worth sending additional reinforcements to this front if you can hold one or more replacement cities?

Damned straight. It will require a much more serious invasion to actually take out Mexico with this plan. And anywhere you can make the Axis form a line with you, you should do it, as long as other (more important) areas aren't suffering because of it.

[DeconMan]

New Question

Are the Japanese forces a one time thing or are the multiple reinforcement rounds for those forces. I'm on the offensive in a couple games and just want to know how much help I'm going to get from those guys.

v/r Kevin

[JeremyMacDonald]

Originally posted by Mantis
Interesting!

Does this move them both off the coast?
Off Ports anyway. I am probably going to move one of the 10 VP industreal Cities South nearer the Yucatan due to the value of some of the resources their for the historical war effort.

[JeremyMacDonald]

Originally posted by DeconMan
New Question

Are the Japanese forces a one time thing or are the multiple reinforcement rounds for those forces. I'm on the offensive in a couple games and just want to know how much help I'm going to get from those guys.

v/r Kevin
There are quite a few rounds of Japanese reinforcments spread over the course of the scenario.